Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    In my avatar's stomach...
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question Nuclear Nonsense

    Ready for another round of devil's advocate?

    Ok, let's set things straight... we have the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the US is one of them... these five countries, according to UN NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), are allowed to have nukes, frankly because they found them first, and God forbid we take dangerous toys away from children...

    So we have the US - absolutely mind-boggling stash of nuclear weapons, strategic and tactical... well... since Bush is president (at least for now) we should call them nucular... but that's aside the point :D :*

    Anyway, so we have these nukes, and the world is supposed to trust us never to use them, really. Now here's an interesting matter about trust - we don't even trust ourselves, yet we expect everyone else to trust us? How many of us lock our cars? Our doors? Our windows? Our briefcases? How many of us skeptically look at others who look, well... not so well off and wonder if they are going to steal anything, so we secure our belongings? How many of us protect our wallets and purses and pockets while on a crowded bus or subway?

    Now, for the best question... how many of us trust politicians?

    So we go around, being awful suspicious about even nuclear ENERGY programs, and outright enforcing that nations other than US, Russia, China, UK, and France cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons? Who are we to say that? Does it not seem in the least bit cocky to do so?

    So, let's kick it up another notch and ask, why shouldn't we use nukes? Sure, those fission-fusion bombs pack megatons of dynamite worth of explosive power, but isn't that a matter of efficiency? End it all quickly? I mean, yeah, people are going to die, but so many of them are going to die instantly! Those that don't might suffer a bit, but war is all about suffering and hardship! It always has been, so why change it now?

    Ok, so taking out large cities or small countries in one bomb drop does seem a little drastic, but hey, that's what our tactical nukes are for! They take out, oh say, one city block. That's pretty confined! What's wrong with that? Let's say Osama Bin Laden was just sighted in this one city block, but by the time we could target him, and surgically wipe him out, since we don't have any men in place, he could hide or get away! But just one tactical nuke, and there's no escape! Wouldn't that be so easy? So why not use it? What's the hype about people doing a little bit of suffering? We let our homeless and hungry suffer every day! We haven't banned unemployment! (See the minimum wage thread :D)

    Ok, this is getting long-winded, but I've made my points to discuss:
    1. Can we be trusted with nukes?
    2. SHOULD we be trusted with them?
    3. How does the use of nuclear weapons contradict with the fundamentals of warfare?
    4. Are tactical nukes justifiable?
    5. Is this list getting too long?
    6. I guess so... this is the last one!


    If there is anything you would like to add, please do so:
    I think, therefore I am. Thus, while I sleep, I am not! Could this be why time appears to have no bearing while asleep, because you do not exist? What is time? What defines existence? A body, a mind, a soul? Thus, I envy those that die, for they have the answers. Yet, what is death? Does the sentience of an entity cease to be at the time the body fails? We shall all see one day. ;?

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nuclear Nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorketh
    Ok, this is getting long-winded, but I've made my points to discuss:
    1. Can we be trusted with nukes?
    2. SHOULD we be trusted with them?
    3. How does the use of nuclear weapons contradict with the fundamentals of warfare?
    4. Are tactical nukes justifiable?
    5. Is this list getting too long?
    6. I guess so... this is the last one!
    A)There hasn't been any "itchy trigger finger" on the nuke button since the Cold War (which has arguably, not yet ended)
    B) Probably not.
    C)If we can use guns to kill others from safety, I believe nukes are no different. It's just taboo to "accidentally" kill a few hundred/hundred thousand civilians while trying to hit a particular character.
    D) Depends on if you want a body to collect, and fallout/radiation, the blast area is pretty small, so you won't want to go back to that city block for a while, but apparent damage to nearby areas should not be so bad. I would prefer a MOAB or Daisy Cutter for the same job as a Tac Nuke.
    E)No.
    F) Is this a question?
    If there is anything you would like to add, please do so:
    Are there more practical alternatives?
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nuclear Nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorketh
    1. Can we be trusted with nukes?
    2. SHOULD we be trusted with them?
    3. How does the use of nuclear weapons contradict with the fundamentals of warfare?
    4. Are tactical nukes justifiable?
    5. Is this list getting too long?
    6. I guess so... this is the last one!
    1.)Yes, and if the USA hasn't proved that yet, then your standards of proof are unreasonable.
    2.)We were the first to have them. We used them to end someone elses war of aggression. Havent used them since. Can anyone give me a good reason why this answer should be no?
    3.)Several ways, not the least of which is the lingering aftereffects of use. Kinda like after eating that bean burrito, you know you aint seen the last of it yet... ;?
    4.)Yes, in battlefield situations. Tactical nukes came about because the US knew it simply could not hold back a Russian invasion through the Fulga Gap without them. I have personally participated in a yearly US exercise called Operation REFORGER. (Return of Forces to Germany) The US needed a minimum of 10 days to get any sizable force back to Germany...tactical (battlefield) nukes were the ONLY way our 2 or 3 ACRs would be able to hold out until we were able to get reinforcements over there. Of course, the concept of MAD kept any of that from happening, because as we all know, the Russians would have the used TacNukes against us, then we would have had to use ICBMs to stop them, and they would retaliate with the same, and then.....yeesh.

    On a small side note (and completely off topic), the Russians had to develop bigger nukes than we did. I'm sure in some small part it was due to an international pissing contest that USSR and US were involved in, but there is a technical reason also. The Russians couldn't make guidance systems worth a lick. There is a concept that pretty much ONLY applies to nukes, the Circular Area of Probable Hit (CAPH)...essentially "How close can we expect any of these missiles to get?" The Russian's CAPH was MUCH larger than the US', because we could make guidance systems that would put the bullet right on the target. Hiroshima taught everyone that it doesnt take a whole lot to level a city. 12 kilotons was all it took. They arent making cities any tougher these days. Problem is, you have to get the bomb there to do it. The Russian's couldn't, so they made these HUGE bombs to make up for it. That way, if the nuke even got remotely close to its target, its blast would be sure to still take it out.
    We took risks. We knew we took them. Things have come out against us. We have no cause for complaint. Scott, found in his diary after the party froze in Antarctica

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    In my avatar's stomach...
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nuclear Nonsense

    Hah! Every answer I was looking for! YAY PM! Now if only someone could create a good argument against everything you've said...
    I think, therefore I am. Thus, while I sleep, I am not! Could this be why time appears to have no bearing while asleep, because you do not exist? What is time? What defines existence? A body, a mind, a soul? Thus, I envy those that die, for they have the answers. Yet, what is death? Does the sentience of an entity cease to be at the time the body fails? We shall all see one day. ;?

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nuclear Nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorketh
    Hah! Every answer I was looking for! YAY PM! Now if only someone could create a good argument against everything you've said...
    lol

    let them come...
    We took risks. We knew we took them. Things have come out against us. We have no cause for complaint. Scott, found in his diary after the party froze in Antarctica

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Demonic, Crazed, Vampiric, Satanist Homosexuals
    By Dionysus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: October 28th, 2004, 12:30 PM
  2. More Bush Lies
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: September 21st, 2004, 11:30 AM
  3. Opinions (nonsense thread)
    By Dionysus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: September 17th, 2004, 06:20 AM
  4. MORE WMD found in Iraq
    By Spartacus in forum Current Events
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: July 21st, 2004, 05:06 AM
  5. Opposite Day (WARNING: nonsense thread)
    By Dionysus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: June 15th, 2004, 09:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •