So, do you think we should keep nuclear weapons or get rid of them?
I personally think we should keep them.
Full Version: Nuclear Weapons
Strictly speaking, we aren't allowing any more real life issues threads here because they turn into war zones. You should have asked a mod before opening this 
However, I'll give it a chance - with a warning that it will be locked if people can't behave themselves.
However, I'll give it a chance - with a warning that it will be locked if people can't behave themselves.
I really don't know, on the one hand, murdering millions of innicent poor children is heartless bloody murder, on the other hand it might be necsicary. I don't like the way the world is ruled not by those who are right, but by those with the most bombs, but what can you do about it? I mean if some small country that hadn't been discoveed yet suddenly was discovered, and it ws completely perfect with total peace and prosperitary, no doubt some superpower would take over it and say "We are right because we are stronger!" then the small country would fall into war and depression because of people who are "right".
Also, who is "we"? What country are you talking for?
Also, who is "we"? What country are you talking for?
I'd say we should keep them as well. This is because other countries have or say they have Nuclear Weapons. If ever a conflicts arises and other countries threaten to use them, we would have something to protect us with. I however, don't like Nuclear Weapons, or even wars. I believe in PEACE, but we should keep Nuclear Weapons and only use them if we absolutely needed it. If there was no country who had or say they have Nuclear Weapons then I would say get rid of it, but at this time we should keep them.
| QUOTE |
| Also, who is "we"? What country are you talking for? |
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
| QUOTE |
| If ever a conflicts arises and other countries threaten to use them, we would have something to protect us with. |
Excellent point, I agree completely.
Hiya,
I voted for "Keep Them" because like Anglophile92 said, if a country threatens to use it then we need to protect our country otherwise the UK will be over and done with.
If i am not much mistaken , Nuclear Weapons have only been used twice in History, both in World War ll.
The first event was on the 6th of August 1945 when the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan and the second time was on the 9th of August 1945 when another bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. This resulted int the death of over 150,000 people.
Thankyou,
V.H
I voted for "Keep Them" because like Anglophile92 said, if a country threatens to use it then we need to protect our country otherwise the UK will be over and done with.
If i am not much mistaken , Nuclear Weapons have only been used twice in History, both in World War ll.
The first event was on the 6th of August 1945 when the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan and the second time was on the 9th of August 1945 when another bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. This resulted int the death of over 150,000 people.
Thankyou,
V.H
| QUOTE |
| If i am not much mistaken , Nuclear Weapons have only been used twice in History, both in World War ll. |
Yes you are indeed correct. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice against people. However there has been many nuclear tests.
Britain's first nuclear test was 'Operation Hurricane' in 1952.
I voted for 'Keep Them!' but I would take out the "!" because I'm not for using them. I think that Nuclear weapons have become something that needs to be here on earth. What if a bunch of Aliens attack?? 
Just joking. I can see why people would vote for 'Get rid of them' because, in the wrong hands, they can be potentially dangerous to mankind. In case WWIII comes, these weapons will be doing most of the fighting. So there are strong arguments for both sides on this for me.
Just joking. I can see why people would vote for 'Get rid of them' because, in the wrong hands, they can be potentially dangerous to mankind. In case WWIII comes, these weapons will be doing most of the fighting. So there are strong arguments for both sides on this for me.
I voted and I will always vote for "Get rid of them!"...
They're the most horrible things that can exist all over the world. They're highly destructive...
They can be even excuses to begin wars, just as the Iraq War, that Bush said they were keeping nuclear weapons. Yeah, and he thinks he is the World Guardian... Who asked him to inspect if they really did have?... He made a war of it where many people died...
Other people may say, they serve to protect us. If you don't have any enemy (and I think we shouldn't, because we're all in the same planet, and we have only one) you don't have any reason to keep weapons to protect, because you don't have anyone to attack you...
I completely disagree with the "technology" of the weapons. That money is being spent in stupid weapons to kill people, instead of being used to develop new medicines, sciences or studies that can SAVE people...
If the people that creates the nuclear weapons used their brain to save people, there would be no illnesses on the world, and I'm not exagerating. Just thing all the things that weapons have been developed. Yes, they care about illnesses too, but in a minor proportion than the weapons, and that makes me sad...
I'd rather prefer a war as Mahatma Ghandi (sp?) made. He made the complete revolution of India without shooting a simple bullet. The decition of change depends on all of us...
And we must not let Presidents or the Power Figures to control us. For example, when a president fights against another President, who is sent to fight?... Not the president, of course... He sends innocent people... I completely disagree with this. If they have a problem between themselves, they must finish by themselves, not using other persons...
We live (I'm talking about México, but I think is happening on many countries) on a society where the power is not ruled by the people, but the governments...
Did someone see the " 'V' for 'Vendetta' " Movie or the "Un mundo maravillo (A wonderful world)" Movie?...
Those movies clearly represents the matter of the society nowadays. The government controlling the people however they want. The newspapers and the TV news cleaning the news either to extremist or very lightly...
As 'V for Vendetta' slogan says "The people shouldn't fear their governments, the government should fear their people"...
Let me remind you what we stand for: democracy. It means, the government of the people. If all the people units between themselves instead of fight, we could create a new-based-society and try to convince the governments to change and to restore the peace, and the destruction of the nuclear weapons...
But no, the innovating people are shouted. Their darkened by the people who has money, who has power, who has influences...
I think we should get rid of them because they make more destruction than the "protection" they give...
You say you'd keep them to protect youselves. How do they 'protect' you?...
They can help you to attack, yes. But they do not actually protect, nobody indeed. You can use it to treathen (sp?), but they can't be used as a shield, can they?...
But I will wait to see others' opinion to get mine more wisely...
I hope not to offend anyone nor disabide the rules, if I did, I will change my post as soon as possible... I tend to exceed myself on this issues...
Ever~
[Mod Edit] Please steady the tone and use lower cases instead of caps as it is considered shouting, thanks.
They're the most horrible things that can exist all over the world. They're highly destructive...
They can be even excuses to begin wars, just as the Iraq War, that Bush said they were keeping nuclear weapons. Yeah, and he thinks he is the World Guardian... Who asked him to inspect if they really did have?... He made a war of it where many people died...
Other people may say, they serve to protect us. If you don't have any enemy (and I think we shouldn't, because we're all in the same planet, and we have only one) you don't have any reason to keep weapons to protect, because you don't have anyone to attack you...
I completely disagree with the "technology" of the weapons. That money is being spent in stupid weapons to kill people, instead of being used to develop new medicines, sciences or studies that can SAVE people...
If the people that creates the nuclear weapons used their brain to save people, there would be no illnesses on the world, and I'm not exagerating. Just thing all the things that weapons have been developed. Yes, they care about illnesses too, but in a minor proportion than the weapons, and that makes me sad...
I'd rather prefer a war as Mahatma Ghandi (sp?) made. He made the complete revolution of India without shooting a simple bullet. The decition of change depends on all of us...
And we must not let Presidents or the Power Figures to control us. For example, when a president fights against another President, who is sent to fight?... Not the president, of course... He sends innocent people... I completely disagree with this. If they have a problem between themselves, they must finish by themselves, not using other persons...
We live (I'm talking about México, but I think is happening on many countries) on a society where the power is not ruled by the people, but the governments...
Did someone see the " 'V' for 'Vendetta' " Movie or the "Un mundo maravillo (A wonderful world)" Movie?...
Those movies clearly represents the matter of the society nowadays. The government controlling the people however they want. The newspapers and the TV news cleaning the news either to extremist or very lightly...
As 'V for Vendetta' slogan says "The people shouldn't fear their governments, the government should fear their people"...
Let me remind you what we stand for: democracy. It means, the government of the people. If all the people units between themselves instead of fight, we could create a new-based-society and try to convince the governments to change and to restore the peace, and the destruction of the nuclear weapons...
But no, the innovating people are shouted. Their darkened by the people who has money, who has power, who has influences...
I think we should get rid of them because they make more destruction than the "protection" they give...
You say you'd keep them to protect youselves. How do they 'protect' you?...
They can help you to attack, yes. But they do not actually protect, nobody indeed. You can use it to treathen (sp?), but they can't be used as a shield, can they?...
But I will wait to see others' opinion to get mine more wisely...
I hope not to offend anyone nor disabide the rules, if I did, I will change my post as soon as possible... I tend to exceed myself on this issues...
Ever~
[Mod Edit] Please steady the tone and use lower cases instead of caps as it is considered shouting, thanks.
Let's keep it cool and calm... However strongly you feel about the subject--and this goes for everyone, it's a mighty good idea to keep the edge out of your post. Even if you get a bit riled, someone is going to respond with greater intensity especially in threads like these... Don't let your opinion flame the board, let's be respectful and accepting of everyones' posts. Thank-you.
Deep breath now...
I really don't want to see another post of this nature on this thread...
Deep breath now...
I really don't want to see another post of this nature on this thread...
As I said, I apologize (sp?) for the possible offending or shouting comments, but sometimes I exceed...
I always used the capital letters to make something more important, like if I remark it...
As far as I can see, I didn't offended anyone's posts or someone (in)directly; if I did so, I'm sorry...
I promise I will not exceed next time... You have my word...
Ever~
I always used the capital letters to make something more important, like if I remark it...
As far as I can see, I didn't offended anyone's posts or someone (in)directly; if I did so, I'm sorry...
I promise I will not exceed next time... You have my word...
Ever~
The atomic bomb, whether one wants to believe it or not, was made with the greater good in mind. Einstein and many other physicists/scientists escaped Nazi persecution and came to the United States with their genious minds and were there to begin the Manhatten Project. I think it was initially meant for Germany, in fact, it was believed that Germany at the close of World War II in Europe had almost succeeded in creating one. However, they didn't get a chance to complete it or test it, so they sent it on a submarine to Japan which was intercepted in the Atlantic.
Back to the greater good thing...if the bombs had not been dropped on Japan, then potentially millions of people on both sides (American and Japanese) would have been killed rather than hundreds of thousands. I know its a morbid thought, but its the truth.
After World War II, the US was the only one with the bomb. I believe it was a married couple by the name of the Rosenthal's who sold the plans of the bomb to the Soviet Union. They were put of trial for treason and a bunch of other things happened to them (they may have been executed but I'm not sure of that). People wondered why they would do this. I think they did it so the US wouldn't go on a power trip with this incredible power, or trump card. Thats questionable as to whether that would have actually happened. But in 1949, the Soviet Union had created the bomb. Now there was a balance of power in the world where one was for communism and the other for democracy and most either chose their side or were forced to (like Eastern Europe). This of course started the Cold War (keep in mind, though, that my facts might be off).
The Cold War had the arms race, which was eventually stopped and talks were brought in to destroy the weapons...though of course the US still has them, the Russians have them, Pakistan, India, etc. (kind of reminds me of that one flash video if any of you saw it, 'Ze End of the World'). During the Cold War, the only reason why the bombs were made was to be one step ahead of the other, and to help prove that the other government was better and stronger.
In the late 80's and early 90's, the Soviet Union fell and there was no longer this need to prove anything government-wise between the two, and Reagan and the Russian president helped diminish this idea. Now, and even then, there was no need for the nuclear bombs. That time in 1945 was probably the only reasonable use for them, as crazy as that might sound.
I don't think they can be used for protection, but only to combat others who use them. Say country X bombs the US, then of course the US would retaliate most likely with the same thing that X used. But, I don't think this would happen unless country X wanted to truly end the world, or destroy itself. I honestly don't see a nuclear war looming unless whichever country were to use them to destroy themselves or the world. (Destroying themselves by bombing another country, then that other country retaliating, and the pattern would continue).
With all that being said, I think we should keep them (I'm talking about the US and Britain). Its a bad concept, but it could possibly be the only way to keep invaders away and at bay. With the thought of possible total destruction in the back of their minds, the invaders or attackers would think twice. Now, I'm not saying every country except the US and Britain are 'bad' or 'untrustworthy'...
Think about the condition Israel would be in if it weren't for this weapon that brings fear. Its a horrible trump card, but perhaps it is necessary...just for show I suppose...like what Theodore Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Know what I mean? I can, however, be swayed in a different direction if there is a better argument. I'm open-minded on a lot of issues...
Once again, Field Marshal, did you start this because of your fanfic?
Back to the greater good thing...if the bombs had not been dropped on Japan, then potentially millions of people on both sides (American and Japanese) would have been killed rather than hundreds of thousands. I know its a morbid thought, but its the truth.
After World War II, the US was the only one with the bomb. I believe it was a married couple by the name of the Rosenthal's who sold the plans of the bomb to the Soviet Union. They were put of trial for treason and a bunch of other things happened to them (they may have been executed but I'm not sure of that). People wondered why they would do this. I think they did it so the US wouldn't go on a power trip with this incredible power, or trump card. Thats questionable as to whether that would have actually happened. But in 1949, the Soviet Union had created the bomb. Now there was a balance of power in the world where one was for communism and the other for democracy and most either chose their side or were forced to (like Eastern Europe). This of course started the Cold War (keep in mind, though, that my facts might be off).
The Cold War had the arms race, which was eventually stopped and talks were brought in to destroy the weapons...though of course the US still has them, the Russians have them, Pakistan, India, etc. (kind of reminds me of that one flash video if any of you saw it, 'Ze End of the World'). During the Cold War, the only reason why the bombs were made was to be one step ahead of the other, and to help prove that the other government was better and stronger.
In the late 80's and early 90's, the Soviet Union fell and there was no longer this need to prove anything government-wise between the two, and Reagan and the Russian president helped diminish this idea. Now, and even then, there was no need for the nuclear bombs. That time in 1945 was probably the only reasonable use for them, as crazy as that might sound.
I don't think they can be used for protection, but only to combat others who use them. Say country X bombs the US, then of course the US would retaliate most likely with the same thing that X used. But, I don't think this would happen unless country X wanted to truly end the world, or destroy itself. I honestly don't see a nuclear war looming unless whichever country were to use them to destroy themselves or the world. (Destroying themselves by bombing another country, then that other country retaliating, and the pattern would continue).
With all that being said, I think we should keep them (I'm talking about the US and Britain). Its a bad concept, but it could possibly be the only way to keep invaders away and at bay. With the thought of possible total destruction in the back of their minds, the invaders or attackers would think twice. Now, I'm not saying every country except the US and Britain are 'bad' or 'untrustworthy'...
Think about the condition Israel would be in if it weren't for this weapon that brings fear. Its a horrible trump card, but perhaps it is necessary...just for show I suppose...like what Theodore Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Know what I mean? I can, however, be swayed in a different direction if there is a better argument. I'm open-minded on a lot of issues...
Once again, Field Marshal, did you start this because of your fanfic?
| QUOTE |
| Back to the greater good thing...if the bombs had not been dropped on Japan, then potentially millions of people on both sides (American and Japanese) would have been killed rather than hundreds of thousands. |
That is indeed correct. The Emperor of Japan and his government, wanted to stop the Allies at all costs. They were ordering Japanese soldiers to sneak underneath Allied tanks and detonating bombs. They were ordering Japanese pilots to crash their planes into Allied planes and warships. If it wasn't for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then millions of Japanese and Allied Soldiers would have died.
| QUOTE |
| Think about the condition Israel would be in if it weren't for this weapon that brings fear. |
Exactly. Before Israel got the bomb, they fought several horrible wars against muslims. The most famous of these wars is the Six-Day War. This war killed around 22,000 soldiers and wounded nearly 50,000 soldiers. Since Israel have got the atomic bomb, there hasn't been Arab-Israeli conflict since 1973.
My point is if Israel didn't get nuclear weapons, then the Middle East would be in a lot worse state than it is today.
| QUOTE |
| Once again, Field Marshal, did you start this because of your fanfic? |
No, not this time Chris.
Ok, I'm steady now...
I would ask some questions first, about somethings related to this, and then I will say something of my own...
1) If the Emperor of Japan wanted to stop war, then why didn't they arranged a Peace Treaty?... I know sometimes is easier say it than do it, but I think it would've been better than dropping the bomb. and we'd keep many people...
2) Are the other 'possible' ways to keep the 'peace'. I mean, why using the 'Fear Factor' instead of other kinds of relationship. I know we are in a hard times and the avarice and stuff are growing more each time. But there are better ways, aren't they?...
And I do believe what El Barto says, the bombs were done with a good intention. But remember sometimes a thing on the wrong hands can be used worse than his real function...
Ever~
Is that steady?...
I would ask some questions first, about somethings related to this, and then I will say something of my own...
1) If the Emperor of Japan wanted to stop war, then why didn't they arranged a Peace Treaty?... I know sometimes is easier say it than do it, but I think it would've been better than dropping the bomb. and we'd keep many people...
2) Are the other 'possible' ways to keep the 'peace'. I mean, why using the 'Fear Factor' instead of other kinds of relationship. I know we are in a hard times and the avarice and stuff are growing more each time. But there are better ways, aren't they?...
And I do believe what El Barto says, the bombs were done with a good intention. But remember sometimes a thing on the wrong hands can be used worse than his real function...
Ever~
Is that steady?...
| QUOTE |
| 1) If the Emperor of Japan wanted to stop war, then why didn't they arranged a Peace Treaty?... I know sometimes is easier say it than do it, but I think it would've been better than dropping the bomb. and we'd keep many people... |
It seems you misread my post Everseer. I said the Emperor of Japan wanted to stop the Allies from invading Japan, not the war. He (and his government) was going to great lengths to stop the Allies from invading (such as turning young Japanese soldiers into suicide bombers) which is why the US dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for a Peace Treaty, the Emperor and his government didn't want one for two reasons:
1. They (the Emperor and his government) would lose a lot of power, and they would lose control of Korea and Manchuria (a part of China which the Japanese had invaded years before).
2. They would lose a lot of pride.
| QUOTE |
| 2) Are the other 'possible' ways to keep the 'peace'. I mean, why using the 'Fear Factor' instead of other kinds of relationship. |
Tell that to the Syrians and Palestinians.
Well, I misunderstood your post, but now you've explained me further...
I tought Japan's Emperator wanted to stop war, not the invasion...
Well, let's say I accept a bit with the 'Fear Factor' while they do not use those weapons for nothing else but threaten (sp?)... They do not harm anybody when they're not used...
Also, your points are making me change my mind (really). Can I assume that the Emperor made those 'kamikases' (sp?) to protect his people?... That way would change a bit more of my mind considering that he was protecting his people and their interests...
About the pride, I wouldn't care about it if I was a president and had to finish a war, but I'm too young and I won't be president (that's for sure) so I have no good opinions about it...
Now, I want to make you a question, maybe a weird one...
What do you think of the presidents nowadays?... Do they protect their people interests and lives, or just their interests and lives?...
That's what has me wondering...
Ever~
I tought Japan's Emperator wanted to stop war, not the invasion...
Well, let's say I accept a bit with the 'Fear Factor' while they do not use those weapons for nothing else but threaten (sp?)... They do not harm anybody when they're not used...
Also, your points are making me change my mind (really). Can I assume that the Emperor made those 'kamikases' (sp?) to protect his people?... That way would change a bit more of my mind considering that he was protecting his people and their interests...
About the pride, I wouldn't care about it if I was a president and had to finish a war, but I'm too young and I won't be president (that's for sure) so I have no good opinions about it...
Now, I want to make you a question, maybe a weird one...
What do you think of the presidents nowadays?... Do they protect their people interests and lives, or just their interests and lives?...
That's what has me wondering...
Ever~
Hiya,
| QUOTE |
| Tell that to the Syrians and Palestinians |
.
Field Marshal, can you please explain what you meant there, im very confused. What have the Syrians and Palestinians to do with it? I know its off topic but It was the Israelis that invaded Palestine..but anyway what has that to do with it?
Back to the topic, i know many people voted for "get rid of them" but seeing as they've only been used twice and its very unlikely they're used again, whats the difference? If a country threatens us and if World War II comes back and theres nothing to stop the war except a threatening with a Nuclear Weapon then its important that we have them. The US wouldn't have used them if Japan had just agreed to give in but seeing as Japan didnt want to lose pride and didnt want to give in easily, the bombs exploded and caused many deaths. Ireally dont understand why they didnt give in because its the same really, they gave in in the end so they could have saved the death of so many Japanese people who were innocent.
Thanks,
V.H
Field Marshal, can you please explain what you meant there, im very confused.
What have the Syrians and Palestinians to do with it? I know its off topic but It was the Israelis that invaded Palestine..but anyway what has that to do with it?Back to the topic, i know many people voted for "get rid of them" but seeing as they've only been used twice and its very unlikely they're used again, whats the difference? If a country threatens us and if World War II comes back and theres nothing to stop the war except a threatening with a Nuclear Weapon then its important that we have them. The US wouldn't have used them if Japan had just agreed to give in but seeing as Japan didnt want to lose pride and didnt want to give in easily, the bombs exploded and caused many deaths. Ireally dont understand why they didnt give in because its the same really, they gave in in the end so they could have saved the death of so many Japanese people who were innocent.
Thanks,
V.H
Finally someone of my same opinion about the bombs...
First of all, *dementor*, the quote you made from Marshall is a kind of sarcasm, or joke. Like 'that's not gonna happen' stuff...
Well, as I said (or I think I did), the pride is something bad when in war it comes. The prefer to keep pride instead of lives...
Anyway, the only thing they could've lost by surrender was territory and resources. Yes, that means something, but I would've prefered the lives than the money...
Don't you think?...
Ever~
First of all, *dementor*, the quote you made from Marshall is a kind of sarcasm, or joke. Like 'that's not gonna happen' stuff...
Well, as I said (or I think I did), the pride is something bad when in war it comes. The prefer to keep pride instead of lives...
Anyway, the only thing they could've lost by surrender was territory and resources. Yes, that means something, but I would've prefered the lives than the money...
Don't you think?...
Ever~
Field Marshal is right about the pride in the Japanese. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and when Hitler declared war on the US (because the Japanese were allies to the axis, though it was extremely rare for the three major ones to work together...except for the Italians/Germans working together), he said something along the lines of "we now have a nation on our side that hasn't been vanquished for thousands of years." The Japanese have extreme pride and honor, and even; during the Samurai times, went as far as killing themselve in honor to prevent shame, or to erase shame. However, it was the way in which they did this...a certain stab to the heart or stomach (but perhaps we can save this for another discussion). So, they still had this form of honor...
They weren't going to accept that they were going to be beat, not with such pride, which I'm sure any country has the same perogitive. The Americans at the time knew this...or rather, the Japanese shunned peace talks which were more like the US telling them to surrender or something terrible would happen. The US had island hopped and could have launched an invasion (but like I said there was the possibility of millions of lives lost, rather than hundreds of thousands.).
One way they could have avoided all loss was to invite the Japanese to watch the Americans drop an atomic bomb on an uninhabited island. Of course, and this did happen, there would be discussion on the use of it because; later, a hydrogen bomb destroyed an island (but thats also maybe for a different discussion). The Japanese may have realized that they were doomed if they put off talks, because there was no idea about how many bombs the US had. For all they knew, they could have had one hundred, which would destroy the island (though I don't think it would have gone that far either way).
The Israelis didn't invade Palestine. After World War II the Jewish population had no where to go. They were a nationless body of people, that were being turned away from all countries that they sought refuge. For a few years they were kept in internment camps (not for bad, just so they could have a place to call home). The United Nations, which was formed in 1948 or '49 I believe, created the state of Israel in what was Palestine and essentially has led to conflict ever since (though of course it dates back way further than that).
They weren't going to accept that they were going to be beat, not with such pride, which I'm sure any country has the same perogitive. The Americans at the time knew this...or rather, the Japanese shunned peace talks which were more like the US telling them to surrender or something terrible would happen. The US had island hopped and could have launched an invasion (but like I said there was the possibility of millions of lives lost, rather than hundreds of thousands.).
One way they could have avoided all loss was to invite the Japanese to watch the Americans drop an atomic bomb on an uninhabited island. Of course, and this did happen, there would be discussion on the use of it because; later, a hydrogen bomb destroyed an island (but thats also maybe for a different discussion). The Japanese may have realized that they were doomed if they put off talks, because there was no idea about how many bombs the US had. For all they knew, they could have had one hundred, which would destroy the island (though I don't think it would have gone that far either way).
The Israelis didn't invade Palestine. After World War II the Jewish population had no where to go. They were a nationless body of people, that were being turned away from all countries that they sought refuge. For a few years they were kept in internment camps (not for bad, just so they could have a place to call home). The United Nations, which was formed in 1948 or '49 I believe, created the state of Israel in what was Palestine and essentially has led to conflict ever since (though of course it dates back way further than that).
| QUOTE |
| I know its off topic but It was the Israelis that invaded Palestine. |
Wrong. The Israelis got the land (which is Israel/Palestine) from the British.
| QUOTE |
| Ireally dont understand why they didnt give in because its the same really, they gave in in the end so they could have saved the death of so many Japanese people who were innocent. |
Because...
1. Pride.
2. They would have lost Korea and Manchuria (which they did after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
| QUOTE |
| The prefer to keep pride instead of lives... |
I know it's terrible, but the Japanese valued Pride highly (Japan was the home to the Samurai after all).
| QUOTE |
| What do you think of the presidents nowadays?... Do they protect their people interests and lives, or just their interests and lives?... |
Both in a democratic country.
| QUOTE |
| I tought Japan's Emperator wanted to stop war, not the invasion... |
He certainly did not want to end war. The man wanted to repel the Allies invasion and then go back to his crazy empire building in Asia and the Pacific. 'Unfortunately' for him the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped his crazed dream.
Also, does anyone believe that China should no longer be a member of the UN Security Council?
i think we should get rid of them and just have world peace
MOD EDIT: Please elaborate, one liners aren't allowed. Thank you,
MOD EDIT: Please elaborate, one liners aren't allowed. Thank you,
I would like to agree with you NikkiH012, but unfortunatley there will always be some sort of conflict. Maybe we are too primative to stop fighting each other and in the future we will realize our wrongful ways and move to a better society. One of the main problems concerning the hinderance of world peace is how close we are together. The push towards the cities from the industrialization brought a lot of people into one place in a given country and increased the population exponentially, giving more petty prejudices or modes for conflicts...and giving way for such harsh treatment of minorities like people of the Jewish faith. But keep in mind we still have plenty of room in the world...and also we tend to be a territorial people which is why we have borders and governments...this is how its been since the dawn of civilization. If a being from outer space were to look down upon Earth, what would they see?
I'll go more into the formation of Israel: long ago, if you read the Bible, the Jews believed and were told that they were the chosen people of God and were given the land of Israel (most Jews still believe this, and also when I say Jew I don't mean it in a derogatory way). Sometime thereafter, the people began moving out of the arid climate to other places such as Europe. Once many had left, who was there waiting to take it? Arabs, which does include but is not limited to Muslims. Then of course the Crusades happened, this of course was after the death of Christ since that was the whole reason for the Crusades...to get the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims. Anywho, the Muslims and Arabs were there and were staying because it had now become their home. After World War II, as Field Marshal said, the British/UN declared the land Israel and thats where all the people of the Jewish faith were going to live. Obviously, it didn't seem fair. The land belonged to the Muslims (Palestine), and prior to that it was in Jewish hands, but they had left...or most of them anyway. And thus there is a continuous...seemingly neverending...conflict as to who has rightful possession (in my opinion they both do...just call it Israel and Palestine and you're set!). I mean, in the end Muslims, Jews, and Christians have ties to Jerusalem...
I'll go more into the formation of Israel: long ago, if you read the Bible, the Jews believed and were told that they were the chosen people of God and were given the land of Israel (most Jews still believe this, and also when I say Jew I don't mean it in a derogatory way). Sometime thereafter, the people began moving out of the arid climate to other places such as Europe. Once many had left, who was there waiting to take it? Arabs, which does include but is not limited to Muslims. Then of course the Crusades happened, this of course was after the death of Christ since that was the whole reason for the Crusades...to get the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims. Anywho, the Muslims and Arabs were there and were staying because it had now become their home. After World War II, as Field Marshal said, the British/UN declared the land Israel and thats where all the people of the Jewish faith were going to live. Obviously, it didn't seem fair. The land belonged to the Muslims (Palestine), and prior to that it was in Jewish hands, but they had left...or most of them anyway. And thus there is a continuous...seemingly neverending...conflict as to who has rightful possession (in my opinion they both do...just call it Israel and Palestine and you're set!). I mean, in the end Muslims, Jews, and Christians have ties to Jerusalem...
| QUOTE |
QUOTE 2) Are the other 'possible' ways to keep the 'peace'. I mean, why using the 'Fear Factor' instead of other kinds of relationship. Tell that to the Syrians and Palestinians. |
I don't quite understand either, Field Marshal, can you explain?
| QUOTE |
| He certainly did not want to end war. The man wanted to repel the Allies invasion and then go back to his crazy empire building in Asia and the Pacific. 'Unfortunately' for him the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped his crazed dream |
Now, you're right, but not totally. It wasn't just an issue of empire building. There was a necessity, and still is, for more land and raw materials. Manchuria should have been the end to this, and it was forced upon the Chinese, but the Japanese won. However, my country like the US couldn't have argued against this because the honest reason why the US is here is because of relentless land snatching from Native Americans. Nevertheless, the US still insisted the Japanese stop. And I bet if they had stopped in Manchuria that they would still have it to this day, or given it back in time. However, they got greedy. During the same week that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they also too the Phillipines, Hong Kong, and numerous other areas.
Tojo, I think, was the one who commented that "we have awoken a sleeping giant". That of course, being the US, which; like I said, did an island hopping campaign and essentially arrived at the doorstep of Japan: ready for an invasion but with the fear of losing millions. Then the bombs were dropped, the war ended, and so led into the Cold War. Basically communism Vs. capitalism/democracy. There were fears of a third world war, or even the destruction of the world, during the 50's and 60's. The world saw the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US preventing communism from taking a hold in Central America and South America (whether overtly or covertly), and of course there were other conflicts. The Iron Curtain fell over Eastern Europe, etc. Perhaps all this lasted as long as it did because of the nuclear bombs, along with the more devastating hydrogen bombs...which both, if in you're in the vicinity, brings a quick death, but atrocious nonetheless...and severe illness if you're not in the blast zone. I certainly hope that the bombs aren't dropped again, and that there isn't another Cold War, with the impending doom of the end of the world and more comic books like the Hulk hitting the stands...
I think Field Marshall was saying that the Syrians and Palestinians don't respond well to diplomacy.
In a perfect world, I would say yes, get rid of the bombs, of all weapons. But we don't live in a perfect world; we live in a world of greed and hate. A world where people will use everyday things like airplanes to cause chaos and destruction.
In a world like this, it's important to try and be a voice of reason, try and use other means. But it is in no way a given. George Washington said the best way to preserve peace was to be ready for war. Teddy Roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick, Reagan called it deterence.
Basically, the premise is that if you have no way of backing up what you say, then who cares what you say? If everyone was perfect, and cared more for other's than themselves, etc. If we lived in Utopia, in Eden before the fall, then we wouldn't need weapons. But the fact is, we do.
Look at it this way: Without nuclear weapons, the standoff during the 60's, 70's and 80's wouldn't have been cold. It would have been a 'hot' war. World War III. Without mutual destruction, it wouldn't have taken long for the Russians to take West Germany, and then France, and Great Britain. And it's doubtful that the West could have won that kind of war; Russia had too many men and guns. France and Britain couldn't have held out long, weakened like the were from World War II. America would have been helpless from the other side of the ocean, without allies in Europe to launch counter attacks.
The world would be a much less safe place without nuclear weapons. Then, and now.
In a perfect world, I would say yes, get rid of the bombs, of all weapons. But we don't live in a perfect world; we live in a world of greed and hate. A world where people will use everyday things like airplanes to cause chaos and destruction.
In a world like this, it's important to try and be a voice of reason, try and use other means. But it is in no way a given. George Washington said the best way to preserve peace was to be ready for war. Teddy Roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick, Reagan called it deterence.
Basically, the premise is that if you have no way of backing up what you say, then who cares what you say? If everyone was perfect, and cared more for other's than themselves, etc. If we lived in Utopia, in Eden before the fall, then we wouldn't need weapons. But the fact is, we do.
Look at it this way: Without nuclear weapons, the standoff during the 60's, 70's and 80's wouldn't have been cold. It would have been a 'hot' war. World War III. Without mutual destruction, it wouldn't have taken long for the Russians to take West Germany, and then France, and Great Britain. And it's doubtful that the West could have won that kind of war; Russia had too many men and guns. France and Britain couldn't have held out long, weakened like the were from World War II. America would have been helpless from the other side of the ocean, without allies in Europe to launch counter attacks.
The world would be a much less safe place without nuclear weapons. Then, and now.
A lot has been going on since my last post so if I backtrack, sorry.
Pride is something you can't change in a person or a population. If you tell them to 'put their pride aside', then they do get angry and many times will say no. As Marshall said, the Japanese did value pride over everything else. The soliders were ordered to kill as many Allied troops until they died. Some of you would think that it is easy to forget your pride and give in, but for most people it is the most important thing.
Now for the fear factor thing. Is there any other way to get the point across more clearly than to say we have nuclear weapons? Some rulers, such as Bin Ladin and Saddam, were willing to sacrafise the good of their people and not give it.
I don't have anytime left to continue what I want to say but I will later on.
Pride is something you can't change in a person or a population. If you tell them to 'put their pride aside', then they do get angry and many times will say no. As Marshall said, the Japanese did value pride over everything else. The soliders were ordered to kill as many Allied troops until they died. Some of you would think that it is easy to forget your pride and give in, but for most people it is the most important thing.
Now for the fear factor thing. Is there any other way to get the point across more clearly than to say we have nuclear weapons? Some rulers, such as Bin Ladin and Saddam, were willing to sacrafise the good of their people and not give it.
I don't have anytime left to continue what I want to say but I will later on.
QQS, you're right, it would have been a devastating war if it weren't cold but hot. However, I do think that the allies would have prevailed. The Soviets suffered huge casualties during World War II fighting just the Germans, especially at Stalingrad which was one of the turning points of the war (I think the fighting/stand off there lasted 3 years). So, I think the Soviets against everyone else would have been even worse for them, even after World War II where nearly every country was weakened economically and socially.
| QUOTE |
| Now for the fear factor thing. Is there any other way to get the point across more clearly than to say we have nuclear weapons? Some rulers, such as Bin Ladin and Saddam, were willing to sacrafise the good of their people and not give it. |
I agree with you Secret...Bin Laden and other higher ups of his terrorist organization are willing to send people out to blow themselves up. This, however, cannot be compared to the Japanese kamikazes (I know you didn't say this, I'm just emphasizing something). The Japanese thought instead of sending out ships full of thousands of people to possibly get sunk by an American ship, that sending a plan or even a mini-sub with only one person would have more of an affect (and it did) on both sides. It was like another form of honor, and the Americans were horrified, and it succeeded in holding off the Americans for a little while longer. Perhaps the terrorists have the same thought, where sacrificing one in the hopes of killing many is better off than an army or something.
I'll add more to this if you all want me to.
| QUOTE |
| I think Field Marshall was saying that the Syrians and Palestinians don't respond well to diplomacy. |
Finally, somebody actually understands what I meant by that.
| QUOTE |
| Now for the fear factor thing. Is there any other way to get the point across more clearly than to say we have nuclear weapons? |
No. Terrorists and tin pot dictactors don't listen to the UN.
If this Poll was expanded to incorporate the whole world, i would have voted get rid. Because if everyone gets rid, no harm done! 
But if its just the UK, that would put them in to volatile a position, and insecurity would ensue. There has to be a deterrent and for now atleast, it is Nucleur Warfare.
But if its just the UK, that would put them in to volatile a position, and insecurity would ensue. There has to be a deterrent and for now atleast, it is Nucleur Warfare.
Ok..im not going to go on about the "Syrian/Palestinian" thing although i have alot to say about it! Don't worry, i am neither Syrian nor Palestinian...
About Israelis being nationless and not invading Palestine, fine but why did they go kill so many palestinians and all those children? And why is it that all those people cant live in peace in their own country anymore because of fear they will be killed? Why is it that Palestine is now called Israel and if the Israelis were nationless, did they do any better in ruining another nation? Ok..i hope i dont sound angry because im not but i would like an answer!! Thanks..
Anyway I think that the poll is to everyone but most people responding to it, are saying their opinion form the UK or US point of view...something like that..well including me.
Thankyou,
V.H
About Israelis being nationless and not invading Palestine, fine but why did they go kill so many palestinians and all those children? And why is it that all those people cant live in peace in their own country anymore because of fear they will be killed? Why is it that Palestine is now called Israel and if the Israelis were nationless, did they do any better in ruining another nation? Ok..i hope i dont sound angry because im not but i would like an answer!! Thanks..
Anyway I think that the poll is to everyone but most people responding to it, are saying their opinion form the UK or US point of view...something like that..well including me.
Thankyou,
V.H
*dementor*, you kind of make it sound like the Israeli's just moved in on their own accord and started killing Palestinians. Like I said before, the British and the UN set up the state of Israel, it didn't have to be there...it could have been Scottland or Hong Kong...but there were religious ties to Palestine (like the city of Jerusalem), so they made it there, I suppose for that reason and others, and changed the name. Nobody would just sit there and let that happen and the Palestinians already there fought the movement. So both sides were in conflict from day one, and the Syrians, PLO (which is the Palestinian Liberation Organization), Lebanon, and Egyptians took the Palestinians side (though the Egyptians eventually backed away and recognized Israel as a sovereign state after the Six Day War I think).
The US backed Israel and would and still would defend should a war arrive (not necessarily sending troops, but weapons and supplies), and they have a nuclear bomb (but I'm not sure about that). The US does, though, and they're allies...so for now I don't think Syria would mass an army against Israel if the US and its allies are ready for action. I'm sure Syria wouldn't want to be invaded like Iraq and have it turned into chaos (if the US won or pulled out, it would still be some form of chaos right?).
The US backed Israel and would and still would defend should a war arrive (not necessarily sending troops, but weapons and supplies), and they have a nuclear bomb (but I'm not sure about that). The US does, though, and they're allies...so for now I don't think Syria would mass an army against Israel if the US and its allies are ready for action. I'm sure Syria wouldn't want to be invaded like Iraq and have it turned into chaos (if the US won or pulled out, it would still be some form of chaos right?).
| QUOTE |
| fine but why did they go kill so many palestinians and all those children? |
It was wrong that the Israelis did kill innocent palestinians, but that was in response to the Palestinian terrorists killing innocent Israelis.
| QUOTE |
| Why is it that Palestine is now called Israel |
Because Palestine is a muslim name and Israel is a Jewish name.
Sorry El Barto if i sounded like that and thankyou for explaining. 
Field Marshal, Thankyou aswell for explaining so is it the Palestinians who started killing first?
Field Marshal, Thankyou aswell for explaining so is it the Palestinians who started killing first?
| QUOTE |
| Because Palestine is a muslim name and Israel is a Jewish name |
I know that but if they arent invading and they're just coming to settle in a country or something why cant they just leave it to be called Palestine, after all the Palestinians have some right too.
Thankyou again for being patient with me..lol im sorry but i was very curious and kinda confused seeing as what i know was totally different.
Thanks,
V.H
I'm not entirely sure who fired the first shot, or what have you, but the conflict has been going on for a long time. I think it should be called Isreal and Palestine...like Serbia and Montenegro...or a hybrid name if thats possible.
You know, I think the topic is more like a 'Post World War II' discussion than one about nuclear weapons. Perhaps we should revert to that? Or maybe ask a mod to change the name but that would make the poll meaningless...I think. I know the conflict is related to nuclear weapons and all...
You know, I think the topic is more like a 'Post World War II' discussion than one about nuclear weapons. Perhaps we should revert to that? Or maybe ask a mod to change the name but that would make the poll meaningless...I think. I know the conflict is related to nuclear weapons and all...
| QUOTE |
| I know that but if they arent invading and they're just coming to settle in a country or something why cant they just leave it to be called Palestine, after all the Palestinians have some right too. |
Except the fact that Israel/Palestine is run by a Jewish Government and the fact Israelis outnumber the Palestinians.
Yea i agree with you El Barto, or maybe we could open a new topic for it...
Field Marshal, I asked a couple of people if this theory (if thats what you want to call it) is right and they gave me completely different thing.. I will just say what they said okay? Remember this is NOT what I think!
Basically that Israel kept buying land from the Palestinians until, like you said they "outnumbered" the Palestinians and then the US and British helped them to take power of Palestine and gave them weapons and everything, and they said that the Israelis started killing first....ermm what else? I cant remember but there was something important too..oh yea and that all US and British doubt it and they dont say what is really right. I dont really believe that theory though, but does any one have a reply to it?
Thankyou,
V.H
Field Marshal, I asked a couple of people if this theory (if thats what you want to call it) is right and they gave me completely different thing..
I will just say what they said okay? Remember this is NOT what I think!Basically that Israel kept buying land from the Palestinians until, like you said they "outnumbered" the Palestinians and then the US and British helped them to take power of Palestine and gave them weapons and everything, and they said that the Israelis started killing first....ermm what else? I cant remember but there was something important too..oh yea and that all US and British doubt it and they dont say what is really right. I dont really believe that theory though, but does any one have a reply to it?
Thankyou,
V.H
Just a quick reminder that this thread is supposed to be about whether or not countries, and specifically the UK, should keep or get rid of nuclear weapons, so let's please steer the conversation away from the founding of the modern state of Israel. That topic has the potential to incite overly heated debate, which we are trying to avoid in the Just Get Away From Life forum (not really the most relaxation-inducing topic, is it? )
Everyone posting in here should know that this topic is currently one of the most closely-monitored topics in the forums. I would say that some people have already wandered outside the realms of friendly discussion, and I'm sure our over-worked and sometimes irritable mods would not look too kindly on anyone venturing into forbidden territory again. Please don't give them an excuse to nuke this topic.
Now, let's see if everyone can get top marks in the 'Plays well with others' category.
)Everyone posting in here should know that this topic is currently one of the most closely-monitored topics in the forums. I would say that some people have already wandered outside the realms of friendly discussion, and I'm sure our over-worked and sometimes irritable mods would not look too kindly on anyone venturing into forbidden territory again. Please don't give them an excuse to nuke this topic.
Now, let's see if everyone can get top marks in the 'Plays well with others' category.
| QUOTE |
| Basically that Israel kept buying land from the Palestinians until, |
The Israelis never bought land from the Palestinians. As me and Chris said earlier, the main part of Israel was given to the Israelis by the British and United Nations. The other parts (the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank) were won by the Israelis in the Six-Day War.
| QUOTE |
| gave them weapons and everything |
This is true. The IAF (Israeli Air Force) is one of the strongest Air Force's in the world due to the fact that the USAF and the RAF have given top of the range fighter jets (such as F15's and F16's) to it. Israel also got the atomic bomb because of the technology from the British and the US.
Field Marshall, please read Albus-wan's post above you.
This topic is for discussion Nuclear Weapons, mainly should they be kept or not, but it's reasonable to assume other discussions about nukes would arise.
However, just as Albus-wan says, limit the discussion about the creation of Israel. As of now this thread is running good, but I will not hesitate to lock it if it starts to move into Middle Eastern history/politics.
This is the last warning: keep it on topic.
And for future reference,
This topic is for discussion Nuclear Weapons, mainly should they be kept or not, but it's reasonable to assume other discussions about nukes would arise.
However, just as Albus-wan says, limit the discussion about the creation of Israel. As of now this thread is running good, but I will not hesitate to lock it if it starts to move into Middle Eastern history/politics.
This is the last warning: keep it on topic.
And for future reference,
| QUOTE |
| Now, let's see if everyone can get top marks in the 'Plays well with others' category. |
Its been mentioned, but what are the consequences of nuclear weapons? Should we still have them, specifically Britain? Should the UN be the one entity to decide what happens to them? What right does a country have to them?
I have said that the only reason we should keep them, and Britain, is to use them as a trump card to keep aggressors at bay. I don't think the UN should use them because it would be contradictory to what is imposed by the UN...and just like any war, who is to say that a single country won't just go ahead and use them without the UN's approval?
I have said that the only reason we should keep them, and Britain, is to use them as a trump card to keep aggressors at bay. I don't think the UN should use them because it would be contradictory to what is imposed by the UN...and just like any war, who is to say that a single country won't just go ahead and use them without the UN's approval?
get rid of them, all the countries should do it. those weapons will only bring destruction... humans have this strange ability for destroying each other, nuclear weapons will do it easily...
I think everyone should get rid of their nuclear weapons, but there's no way to enforce that. Even if the UN made a law against it or whatever (I'm not sure if they can even do that, I'm not really sure exactly what the UN does), some countries would not comply. So I think it's a good idea that our country keeps some, so we're not totally helpless. Even if we don't use them, it's a sort of protection.
Having nuclear weapons is very close too using them though. I think (although I don't actually own any ) that it might be slightly like having a chocolate bunny or something. You want to eat it, know you shouldn't, but eat it anyway. On the other hand, it might be like a new game, play with it twise and forget about it. Like I said, I don't own any!
However, I think that (and I am totaly trying to keep a lid on what I am thinking here because it will insult but this is as diplomatic as I can make it
) When a country easily defeates another pretty huge country they get cocky, and think, "World domination? What's so hard about that?" so they drop many more bombs, completely destroy innocent women and children, not the people who they are disaggreeing with in the first place, and attempt to take over the world. It would make things pretty easy to overtake the first country with atomic bombs.
My history teacher said, when we were doing the cold war, that what we have now, is far worse than the cold war - terrorism. I'm not sure were I am going there, but it seemed relivent and thought provoking.
This is quite a deep thread, and reading all those posts has given me tonnes of revision for my history GCSE that I really should have been doing before now, so thanks you guys!
) that it might be slightly like having a chocolate bunny or something. You want to eat it, know you shouldn't, but eat it anyway. On the other hand, it might be like a new game, play with it twise and forget about it. Like I said, I don't own any! However, I think that (and I am totaly trying to keep a lid on what I am thinking here because it will insult but this is as diplomatic as I can make it
) When a country easily defeates another pretty huge country they get cocky, and think, "World domination? What's so hard about that?" so they drop many more bombs, completely destroy innocent women and children, not the people who they are disaggreeing with in the first place, and attempt to take over the world. It would make things pretty easy to overtake the first country with atomic bombs.My history teacher said, when we were doing the cold war, that what we have now, is far worse than the cold war - terrorism. I'm not sure were I am going there, but it seemed relivent and thought provoking.
This is quite a deep thread, and reading all those posts has given me tonnes of revision for my history GCSE that I really should have been doing before now, so thanks you guys!
Like it or not, nuclear weapons are not going to go away. Simply put, one cannot "unlearn" about them or how to manufacture them. In other words, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. While in an ideal world everyone would agree to disarm and be content to go their merry way, one cannot expect that some crackpot won't bring them and threaten the world.
The only way to balance things is to have others who are able to mount a believeable counter-threat to those who possess nuclear weapons. These days, the US still holds the upper hand in this, not only in gross megatons but also in the area of delivery systems. This is likely to rise with every nation that gains nuclear weapons, simply dues to the need to counter them in some way.
For those oldies who lived through the Cold War, you'll recall that the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was the only thing that kept NATO and the Warsaw Pact from going at it full tilt. Essentially, no clear victor could emerge from a full-on nuclear war, but the deterrence aspect of nuclear weapons was the ultimate guarantor of this...
Just my 2 cents on the subject.
The only way to balance things is to have others who are able to mount a believeable counter-threat to those who possess nuclear weapons. These days, the US still holds the upper hand in this, not only in gross megatons but also in the area of delivery systems. This is likely to rise with every nation that gains nuclear weapons, simply dues to the need to counter them in some way.
For those oldies who lived through the Cold War, you'll recall that the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was the only thing that kept NATO and the Warsaw Pact from going at it full tilt. Essentially, no clear victor could emerge from a full-on nuclear war, but the deterrence aspect of nuclear weapons was the ultimate guarantor of this...
Just my 2 cents on the subject.
i really think that nukes should just go away!!! if you really think bout it you would see that if countries all round the world used nukes you will radiate the land big time. 
the radiation would stay for bout 100 years (as i heard)!!!!
we really wouldnt need nukes anyways. all of the troubles could be settled easily without useing any nukes.
the radiation would stay for bout 100 years (as i heard)!!!! we really wouldnt need nukes anyways. all of the troubles could be settled easily without useing any nukes.
no matter how far away you shoot a nuke, it will always come back to haunt you. it pollutes the air, making you sick, and then you die. blowing people up and then laughing at them, while sucking in the air you polluted by dying slowly, but it still shows is just really stupid
Well said, Silver_moon! By the way, llove your image!Shows your high taste!heheh. Anyway, on to the topic..
There are 2 sides to the debate:
1. Practical
2. Ideal
Practicality says these are just new weapons, man always invents new weapons, they shall always be there,war is a part of life, it's necessary,etcetcetc....
Idealism has this reply: Never before were there weapons that could destroy the whole world. Never before was one bomb enough to incinerate an entire city. Hatred has always been there. War has always been there.But a weapon that can destroy the world?Don't tell me that's desirable. Whatever your nationality, it's odds-on there's a country you hate. So, what are you going to do about it? Nuke them? But what if they nuked you?Don't think that's possible?That's sheer optimism to the point of-stupidity(sorry, mods, no other word would do). The United States is the only nation that used nukes.They used it 60 years ago. But today, if nuclear terrorism ever happens, whose going to be first in line?Think that's coincidence?If you live by the sword, be prepared to die by the sword. If you are ready to nuke others, watch out! You may be on someone's list too. The world is currently sitting on an enormous nuclear pile-and that's more dangerous than sitting on gunpowder.Assume, for a moment, that it's the Cold War again. Five minutes-that's all it would have taken to launch nukes. Five minutes-to obliterate cities, waste coutrysides, level mountains.Do you want that kind of life?Remember 9/11?That destruction only took place without any weapons-the plane's fuel was good enough. It could have been worse.Much worse. Worse, if even one of them(including the one that crashed) had a nuke on board.Can you imagine what would have happened then?And some say that nukes are desirable. In the old days, only soldiers died for the nation. Now, innocent civilians are the first targets. Don't tell me that's right.War-mongers will make their arguments."Sacrifices have to be made"."Only the strong survive" etcetcetc. Know who said such things?Nazis.Fascists.They had nobody's good in mind. I know, it's tough to put the genie back in the bottle. But I know that it's right. Nukes must go. That way, although countries may still fight, at least there's little chance that tomorrow I'll wake up to see that The World Has Ended. Or maybe I won't wake up.Maybe I'll just be....not there anymore. Mankind discovered the power of the atom. This is a neutral force. You may use it to kill-mass murder, genocide,whatever. Or use it to get energy-cheap,reliable energy. Tell me , which one's better? Do you want to use it for the thrill of power?For total victory?To demonstrate your invincibility?Nobody's invincible forever, and as you sow, so you reap. Remember that. There will always be madmen in the world. Do you want them to have such a deadly weapon in their arsenal?What's that?You'll catch all the madmen?But madmen have a mad habit of cropping up repeatedly(and unexpectedly).Get rid of the vile things. Before they get rid of us.Remember Terminator 3?Remember the words?"Judgement Day:The day mankind was almost destroyed by the very weapons he had created for his protection". Italics added.
Period.
There are 2 sides to the debate:
1. Practical
2. Ideal
Practicality says these are just new weapons, man always invents new weapons, they shall always be there,war is a part of life, it's necessary,etcetcetc....
Idealism has this reply: Never before were there weapons that could destroy the whole world. Never before was one bomb enough to incinerate an entire city. Hatred has always been there. War has always been there.But a weapon that can destroy the world?Don't tell me that's desirable. Whatever your nationality, it's odds-on there's a country you hate. So, what are you going to do about it? Nuke them? But what if they nuked you?Don't think that's possible?That's sheer optimism to the point of-stupidity(sorry, mods, no other word would do). The United States is the only nation that used nukes.They used it 60 years ago. But today, if nuclear terrorism ever happens, whose going to be first in line?Think that's coincidence?If you live by the sword, be prepared to die by the sword. If you are ready to nuke others, watch out! You may be on someone's list too. The world is currently sitting on an enormous nuclear pile-and that's more dangerous than sitting on gunpowder.Assume, for a moment, that it's the Cold War again. Five minutes-that's all it would have taken to launch nukes. Five minutes-to obliterate cities, waste coutrysides, level mountains.Do you want that kind of life?Remember 9/11?That destruction only took place without any weapons-the plane's fuel was good enough. It could have been worse.Much worse. Worse, if even one of them(including the one that crashed) had a nuke on board.Can you imagine what would have happened then?And some say that nukes are desirable. In the old days, only soldiers died for the nation. Now, innocent civilians are the first targets. Don't tell me that's right.War-mongers will make their arguments."Sacrifices have to be made"."Only the strong survive" etcetcetc. Know who said such things?Nazis.Fascists.They had nobody's good in mind. I know, it's tough to put the genie back in the bottle. But I know that it's right. Nukes must go. That way, although countries may still fight, at least there's little chance that tomorrow I'll wake up to see that The World Has Ended. Or maybe I won't wake up.Maybe I'll just be....not there anymore. Mankind discovered the power of the atom. This is a neutral force. You may use it to kill-mass murder, genocide,whatever. Or use it to get energy-cheap,reliable energy. Tell me , which one's better? Do you want to use it for the thrill of power?For total victory?To demonstrate your invincibility?Nobody's invincible forever, and as you sow, so you reap. Remember that. There will always be madmen in the world. Do you want them to have such a deadly weapon in their arsenal?What's that?You'll catch all the madmen?But madmen have a mad habit of cropping up repeatedly(and unexpectedly).Get rid of the vile things. Before they get rid of us.Remember Terminator 3?Remember the words?"Judgement Day:The day mankind was almost destroyed by the very weapons he had created for his protection". Italics added.
Period.
Wow, well said NewDarkLord, that was very, um, powerfull speech there!
I was discussing this topic with my brother the other day, and he said
"Why do we (Britain) need nuclear weapons for? If we get into a war America'll just dive in and blow the world up for us. Then they get the blame. Thats what happened last time anyway."
I have to say, as odd as it may seem, I kinda see his point. America has an odd way of involving itself in every war it can. Look at post WWII. They sorta thought wooow lets go blow up the world because we don't like communists. Never mind that it's nothing to do with us. We beat Japan up and we're invinsable! So they went of and started blowing the communist world up for no reason whatsoever. Till they got stopped in Vietnam. Which, although it was obviously a terrible war (In Vietnam) at least it made the American leaders think for two seconds what they were actually doing.
I'm not sure if this post is amazingly insulting, racist and liable to cause me to be banned or whatever. If so, I appologise most sincerely.
I was discussing this topic with my brother the other day, and he said
"Why do we (Britain) need nuclear weapons for? If we get into a war America'll just dive in and blow the world up for us. Then they get the blame. Thats what happened last time anyway."
I have to say, as odd as it may seem, I kinda see his point. America has an odd way of involving itself in every war it can. Look at post WWII. They sorta thought wooow lets go blow up the world because we don't like communists. Never mind that it's nothing to do with us. We beat Japan up and we're invinsable! So they went of and started blowing the communist world up for no reason whatsoever. Till they got stopped in Vietnam. Which, although it was obviously a terrible war (In Vietnam) at least it made the American leaders think for two seconds what they were actually doing.
I'm not sure if this post is amazingly insulting, racist and liable to cause me to be banned or whatever. If so, I appologise most sincerely.
Its kind of like this: The United States stayed out of World War I until the final year of it...and looked what happened. Perhaps if they had joined earlier, there wouldn't have been such hard rules and things set forth on Germany to cause Hitler to rise to power which led to World War II (though a war with Japan probably would have happened anyway). Then, in World War II, the US still stayed out of it for two years (in fighting terms, because we were still giving materials and supplies out). Again, look what happened. Could it have been stopped sooner if the US had entered earlier? The US had also stayed out of the League of Nations because it didn't want to involve itself in European affairs, and chose to remain neutral from that point after the first world war, and up until before the second. This caused a lot of strife in the global community. The US didn't want this to happen again, so they involved themselve more in the newly created United Nations after World War II.
About Communism Vs. Democracy during the Cold War. Communism, like I said a while back, represents nearly the opposite of what Democracy does politically, and economically. Thats at least what I have been told in my cultural class in my university...so the US and the Soviet Union, being the super powers they were after World War II, started an arms race just to show which political system was stronger. To prevent the spread of communism to Latin America, southeast Asia, and further in Europe, the US either assisted or was involved in wars to prevent it...and of course tried to bring democracy in. Vietnam was a different story. In the beginning Ho Chi Mihn was all for democracy, but after World War II (I think), he was shunned by the US for a proposal he had and started to support communism. Eventually, he tried to bring it to the people of his native country, which at the time was under French rule. When they drove the French out, they started to battle with the south (or north...I can't remember). Basically a battle for communism in Vietnam. The US helped those against comminism, but they didn't want the help, so the Americans found themselves in the thought process of being betrayed by the Vietnamese against communism, because they were being targetted by both sides (though mainly by the pro-communist Vietnamese).
If anybody can help me out on this subject it would be greatly appreciated because I could be wrong...
Oh, and after World War II, for four years, the US was the only country in possession with nuclear weapons. It wasn't until the Rosenthals sold the information about them to the Soviet Union, that others came to have them.
About Communism Vs. Democracy during the Cold War. Communism, like I said a while back, represents nearly the opposite of what Democracy does politically, and economically. Thats at least what I have been told in my cultural class in my university...so the US and the Soviet Union, being the super powers they were after World War II, started an arms race just to show which political system was stronger. To prevent the spread of communism to Latin America, southeast Asia, and further in Europe, the US either assisted or was involved in wars to prevent it...and of course tried to bring democracy in. Vietnam was a different story. In the beginning Ho Chi Mihn was all for democracy, but after World War II (I think), he was shunned by the US for a proposal he had and started to support communism. Eventually, he tried to bring it to the people of his native country, which at the time was under French rule. When they drove the French out, they started to battle with the south (or north...I can't remember). Basically a battle for communism in Vietnam. The US helped those against comminism, but they didn't want the help, so the Americans found themselves in the thought process of being betrayed by the Vietnamese against communism, because they were being targetted by both sides (though mainly by the pro-communist Vietnamese).
If anybody can help me out on this subject it would be greatly appreciated because I could be wrong...
Oh, and after World War II, for four years, the US was the only country in possession with nuclear weapons. It wasn't until the Rosenthals sold the information about them to the Soviet Union, that others came to have them.
Alright, I can tell you exactly why countries like the Us, Great Britain, Russia, Pakistan, and India have nukes: It's a deterrant. A deterrant is a way for a country to scare or at least make another country think twice before attacking them. In the past, the best deterrant was the size of the military, most in the army. However, once the nuclear weapons were created, the US found something that could cause more damage than ever imagined. Would the Soviets want to attack the US then? No. That would cause the US to blow the USSR to bits. Once the two superpowers had the weapons, the two were at a stalemate, for both sides were trying to see what the other one would do. Quite honestly, I believe that nukes kept both countries from going to war with each other, for they feared the consequences of that decision. (They may have came close from time to time, but no fighting ever came out of it).
As to the foreign affair policy called Containment: This was a move made by the scared political leaders of the US. The communist movement around the world started to gain some momentum, and the US wanted to democracy. It's not like democracy and communism are on opposite sides of the spectrum- in fact, democracy's in the middle of the liberal-conservative spectrum, while communism is to the far left (liberal). For some odd reason, the leaders of the US didn't want communism to go outside the borders that it had already occupied; this way, maybe communism may die out. That's what I got out of it anyway.
Am I saying that nuclear weapns are a good thing? No. I know for a fact that one day the weapons will come back to haunt us. For now though, nuclear weapons keep in the world in its line, for people are afraid of the nuclear holocaust that a war would cause. That's my opinion, anyway.
As to the foreign affair policy called Containment: This was a move made by the scared political leaders of the US. The communist movement around the world started to gain some momentum, and the US wanted to democracy. It's not like democracy and communism are on opposite sides of the spectrum- in fact, democracy's in the middle of the liberal-conservative spectrum, while communism is to the far left (liberal). For some odd reason, the leaders of the US didn't want communism to go outside the borders that it had already occupied; this way, maybe communism may die out. That's what I got out of it anyway.
Am I saying that nuclear weapns are a good thing? No. I know for a fact that one day the weapons will come back to haunt us. For now though, nuclear weapons keep in the world in its line, for people are afraid of the nuclear holocaust that a war would cause. That's my opinion, anyway.
Nuclear Weapons have to-date saved more lives than they have ended at the end of WW2 the US was perpareing to invade mainland japan the 2 nuclear acttaks killed about 250,000 japeniese had the US invaded Japan 1,000,000 Us Troops and about 10,000,000 japenisese would have died so as hard as it is to belive the most destructive things on the face of the earth have saved more lives than they took
I disagree, Jeff. The only reason that fat man and little boy were able to end the war against Japan was Hirohito's kind heart. He no longer wanted his people to continue to die, which they were more than willing to do. It was the Emperor who truly ended the war. The public wasn't in anyway dettered after the attack. They had suffered much worst from the fire bombings and other air based attacks.
As for wepons of mass destruction being a detterent to war, that's foolish. Mutually assured destruction can't sustain itself forever. Think about it logically for a few minutes. How smart are people and how easily swayed are they?
Secondly, although the extinction of man was avoided during the cold war, thinking lives were sparred is also foolish. Nuclear weoponry may have prevented war directly between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., but it didn't prevent the fighting. Between 1950 and 1989, there were plenty of wars and unofficial wars. And people died. Lots of people died. About as many as if the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had gone to war without Nuclear Weapons. I just don't see there usefulness.
As for wepons of mass destruction being a detterent to war, that's foolish. Mutually assured destruction can't sustain itself forever. Think about it logically for a few minutes. How smart are people and how easily swayed are they?
Secondly, although the extinction of man was avoided during the cold war, thinking lives were sparred is also foolish. Nuclear weoponry may have prevented war directly between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., but it didn't prevent the fighting. Between 1950 and 1989, there were plenty of wars and unofficial wars. And people died. Lots of people died. About as many as if the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had gone to war without Nuclear Weapons. I just don't see there usefulness.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.