Who Should have a Nuke? And WWII

[Defender2516]

This topic is to discuss modern day times and troubles in a debate on "who should really get a nuke?".

 

 

 

A Nuke is a very powerful tool that should not be triffled with. It can kill millions of people in a instant. Its the last line of Defense should anyone even dare to go to that measure from complete take over from a enemy invasion. Its damage and devestation is compared to none, and its not just the intital blast either, fall out radiation that lasts for several years will plague its rested spot.

 

 

 

Now there is already a thread concerning if Iran should have a nuke, and there is MANY view points you could use to tackle to vote for or against the idea, but I prefer a entirely new discussion fixed on the idea should "everyone" considering a nation, should recieve a nuke for self-defense?

 

 

 

I personally say no to the idea, but I'm intrested in other people's views, as the best way to get the right perspective is to know other perspectives you may have missed or not considered.

 

 

 

Now before we all start answering yes or no, I would like to raise 1 more thing into the debate that would make it alittle more intresting.

 

 

 

Back in World War II, The USA used 2 nuclear bombs that were deployed on 2 japanese cities. However this was after the death of Hilter.

 

 

 

The question is, if Hilter had a nuke and the USA still was equiped with their 2 nukes (not used on Japan yet), would Hilter have used it? And if so, what target?

 

 

 

Now some of you may argue a valuble target for a single nuke may be on USA Soil to halt the endless USA reinforcements invading the western flank, or perhaps it would have been extreemly useful in D-Day to wipe out not only 100,000 soldiers but end our supremancy in naval warefare, considering most of our ships were there at that time.

 

 

 

In my opinion, he would do none of those things. This should make for a very intresting debate, as Hilter could have realisticly and possibly achieved his goal of true genocide against jews by possesing a single nuke. All he would have to do is put all the jews in a big area and hit the shiny red button that says Genocide Complete!

 

 

 

But then again he might have not used it at all.

 

 

 

As the Orginal Poster, here is the rules for this particular topic.

 

 

 

1. Your thoughts and opinions and even hard facts are welcome into this debate.

 

2. No Intelligent Insults (flames) please, a insult is still a insult, even if you are right.

 

3. Religion View Points are welcome. If your opinion is based on a religious point of view, share it.

 

4. For those who counter-attack other posters, you may do so, but you may not attack their religions views.

 

 

 

Example of what NOT to do.

 

Poster1: I believe by God, he would not let Hilter use the nuke.

 

Poster2: Fallacy, you must first prove God exists and that he would have any connection at all in the physical realm before you can make such a claim. (This is attacking someone's religous viewpoint)

 

 

 

Example of what TO do.

 

Poster1: I believe by God, he would not let Hilter use the nuke.

 

POster2: Possibly, but then again, we are still unsure if God plays a role in world affairs. I believe.. (This is not..)

 

 

 

Let the Debate Begin

[dsavi]

As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke.

[Jaziek]

As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke.

 

 

 

but then we'll be sitting ducks for the aliens!!

[NorthernHero]

I agree with dsavi_x4.

 

 

 

BUT I doupt it will happen soon. The big nations which have nukes (U.S.A, Russia, China) could (in utopia) make a deal, in which they dissample their nukes but in reality they propably would just hide them and then bring them up again if war comes (which in utopia wouldn't happen..)

[StrOwez]

I'm not Hitler so I can't decide what Hitler would do. Sorry.

[sycosis5]

As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke.

 

 

 

I agree 100% noone should be alowed a weapon of such destruction.

[Lionheart_0]

Canadians should get nukes, and only Canadians. Although It IS illegal to have any nuclear weapon on Canadian soil, I'm pretty sure we would know how to use them better then any country, and in what way to use them.

 

 

 

And seriously, if Canada had a nuke how many of you would care? Still only have a kayak with a pee shooter for our navy.

[Satenza]

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a useless waste of life, Germany was failing, Japan had already looked as if it was backing down. It is often argued that the deployment of them was more of a warning to Stalin than a warning to Japan, but of course it had the opposite effect. USA's foreign policy wins again.

 

 

 

I am more pro-reduction of nuclear weapons in all countries but I do not think it is very realistic. So instead of having tens of arms races across the world by letting everyone have them the super powers should be the only ones to be allowed to develop them. So those other countries do not have to waste their money on making nukes, they can spend it on real issues not hypothetical never-going-to-happen issues.

[Defender2516]

dsavi_x4

 

As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke.

 

 

 

While I do agree with the concept of pacifisim, I don't think its a realistic one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaziek

 

but then we'll be sitting ducks for the aliens!!

 

 

 

If we get attacked by aliens, which means they would have superior technology considering they can invade us and enter our orbit, I think nukes would do little to help. I know your just being funny but this is also a unrealistic goal :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NorthernHero

 

I agree with dsavi_x4.

 

 

 

BUT I doupt it will happen soon. The big nations which have nukes (U.S.A, Russia, China) could (in utopia) make a deal, in which they dissample their nukes but in reality they propably would just hide them and then bring them up again if war comes (which in utopia wouldn't happen..)

 

 

 

I think from a Military stance, You do not want to give up your best weapon. The only way for nukes to be dismantled is only if the Military has a more powerful, diverse weapon at their disposal that eliminates nukes as obselete. So in this situation, you can never really get rid of nukes inless you trade if off for a bigger and more dangerous threat.

 

 

 

 

 

StrOwez

 

I'm not Hitler so I can't decide what Hitler would do. Sorry.

 

 

 

Alot of people make guestimates of todays current governements yet have no experience themselfs in the actually field but mere knowledge only. Also, not everyone is fully adware of all the governments plans and threats. But we still like to fiddle with our thoughts on whats the most appropriate action with the knowledge we do have, and having quite a bit of history on Hilter, I say we could make some pretty good estimates on his actions. No one can really say your wrong either in this guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sycosis5

 

dsavi_x4 wrote:

 

As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree 100% noone should be alowed a weapon of such destruction.

 

 

 

I agree, but in reality this just won't happen. This is the consquence of knowledge increasing in our time, the information age. I think we should just be happy nothing "worse" has been invented yet. In 20 years, I just see the weapons getting more powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

Lionheart_0

 

Canadians should get nukes, and only Canadians. Although It IS illegal to have any nuclear weapon on Canadian soil, I'm pretty sure we would know how to use them better then any country, and in what way to use them.

 

 

 

And seriously, if Canada had a nuke how many of you would care? Still only have a kayak with a pee shooter for our navy.

 

 

 

I personally wouldn't mind if Canada had nukes. However, them being the only one could corrupt their good hearted judgement. Look at the USA for example. Its not the 100% angel, but they better morals than Hilter, yet when they was the only one who possesed a nuke, they instantly became a leading superpower and even used such weapons with no fear of relatiation. If Canada was the only one, they may very well use them due to the fact who could retaliate?

 

 

 

 

 

Satenza

 

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a useless waste of life, Germany was failing, Japan had already looked as if it was backing down. It is often argued that the deployment of them was more of a warning to Stalin than a warning to Japan, but of course it had the opposite effect. USA's foreign policy wins again.

 

 

 

I am more pro-reduction of nuclear weapons in all countries but I do not think it is very realistic. So instead of having tens of arms races across the world by letting everyone have them the super powers should be the only ones to be allowed to develop them. So those other countries do not have to waste their money on making nukes, they can spend it on real issues not hypothetical never-going-to-happen issues.

 

 

 

At first thought, I did agree, why waste money on a nuke, however, that really only applys if your nation is not under attack. If one day, you was to ever defend your land, a nuke would be mighty useful, a governement could not just simply invade like normally, they would have to spread troops thin incase of a nuclear attack which would make it a all more long and tedious battle.

 

 

 

Nukes are really like "I win/I Lose" cards at the same time.

[Jaziek]

pee shooter .

 

 

 

Is that the same thing as a penis?

 

 

 

or do you by chance mean pea shooter?

[Lionheart_0]

pee shooter .

 

 

 

Is that the same thing as a penis?

 

 

 

or do you by chance mean pea shooter?

 

 

 

No. Here in Canada we have special guns that shoot urine. It is a very good deterrent.

[Giordano]

I think every nation should have nukes if they wish. None of us should bow down to the United States for anything. It's just another country, an imperialistic country, but another country noneoftheless.

[jak722]

I think every nation should have nukes if they wish. None of us should bow down to the United States for anything. It's just another country, an imperialistic country, but another country noneoftheless.

 

 

 

If every nation had a nuke, you're gonna have a TON of angry cartographers, geographers, and map makers at your hand...

 

 

 

Anyways...

 

 

 

 

 

NUKES FOR CANADA!

[i_trollz_u]

How about you look at reality? U.S, Russia, and all the other countries are never going to disarm. And if everyone does disarm, one crazy country will get power hungry and bring back nukes so they can rule the planet. However, if everyone has nukes than the chance of nuclear war is going to increase 100 fold. So this is what I believe: Only 3 or 4 most powerful countries should get nukes to maintain some balance of power and no one will launch the nukes for fear of another country getting angry and starting a nuclear war. This scenario is pretty much what it's like today so I'd just sit back and let the world have it's own way.

[Barihawk]

Hitler actually had a plan written up using Gotha flying wings to deliver heavy water bombs to New York and Washington D.C. These documents were captured by the Russians, along with the scientists working on the bombs and the aircraft prototypes were destroyed.

 

 

 

The Russians would report that Hitler was less than 5 months from developing an atomic weapon. They used that research to build their own.

[jak722]

Hitler actually had a plan written up using Gotha flying wings to deliver heavy water bombs to New York and Washington D.C. These documents were captured by the Russians, along with the scientists working on the bombs and the aircraft prototypes were destroyed.

 

 

 

The Russians would report that Hitler was less than 5 months from developing an atomic weapon. They used that research to build their own.

 

 

 

Even if they were the first ones to actually say that its possible to make a powerful explosive device from atomic reactions, the Germans actually didn't have any working plan or system to manufacture atom bombs.

 

 

 

Sure they had heavy water plants and scientists testing nuclear reactions in labs, they didn't have a concentrated effort like the allies.

 

 

 

I mean, they had no central facility like Los Alamos and their scientists were operating independently for hte most part.

 

 

 

They did have plans for a plane or rocket that can bomb North America from orbit, but much like the other "super weapons" Hitler kept spouting, they never got off the drawing pad.

 

 

 

Allied commanders were soiling their pants during the war, but they were surprised the Germans were far away compared to the allies.

 

 

 

And the Russians just planted spies into the allied nuclear program from the start instead.

 

 

 

Thats why their first bomb was almost a direct copy of the bombs used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[warri0r45]

This topic is to discuss modern day times and troubles in a debate on "who should really get a nuke?".

 

 

 

A Nuke is a very powerful tool that should not be triffled with. It can kill millions of people in a instant. Its the last line of Defense should anyone even dare to go to that measure from complete take over from a enemy invasion. Its damage and devestation is compared to none, and its not just the intital blast either, fall out radiation that lasts for several years will plague its rested spot.

 

 

 

Now there is already a thread concerning if Iran should have a nuke, and there is MANY view points you could use to tackle to vote for or against the idea, but I prefer a entirely new discussion fixed on the idea should "everyone" considering a nation, should recieve a nuke for self-defense?

 

 

 

I personally say no to the idea, but I'm intrested in other people's views, as the best way to get the right perspective is to know other perspectives you may have missed or not considered.

 

 

 

Now before we all start answering yes or no, I would like to raise 1 more thing into the debate that would make it alittle more intresting.

 

 

 

Back in World War II, The USA used 2 nuclear bombs that were deployed on 2 japanese cities. However this was after the death of Hilter.

 

 

 

(1) The question is, if Hilter had a nuke and the USA still was equiped with their 2 nukes (not used on Japan yet), would Hilter have used it? And if so, what target?

 

 

 

Now some of you may argue a valuble target for a single nuke may be on USA Soil to halt the endless USA reinforcements invading the western flank, or perhaps it would have been extreemly useful in D-Day to wipe out not only 100,000 soldiers but end our supremancy in naval warefare, considering most of our ships were there at that time.

 

 

 

In my opinion, he would do none of those things. This should make for a very intresting debate, as (2) Hilter could have realisticly and possibly achieved his goal of true genocide against jews by possesing a single nuke. All he would have to do is put all the jews in a big area and hit the shiny red button that says Genocide Complete!

 

 

 

But then again he might have not used it at all.

 

 

 

As the Orginal Poster, here is the rules for this particular topic.

 

 

 

1. Your thoughts and opinions and even hard facts are welcome into this debate.

 

2. No Intelligent Insults (flames) please, a insult is still a insult, even if you are right.

 

3. Religion View Points are welcome. If your opinion is based on a religious point of view, share it.

 

4. For those who counter-attack other posters, you may do so, but you may not attack their religions views.

 

 

 

Example of what NOT to do.

 

Poster1: I believe by God, he would not let Hilter use the nuke.

 

Poster2: Fallacy, you must first prove God exists and that he would have any connection at all in the physical realm before you can make such a claim. (This is attacking someone's religous viewpoint)

 

 

 

Example of what TO do.

 

Poster1: I believe by God, he would not let Hilter use the nuke.

 

POster2: Possibly, but then again, we are still unsure if God plays a role in world affairs. I believe.. (This is not..)

 

 

 

Let the Debate Begin

 

(1) I think he would have. You don't make nuclear weapons for [cabbage]s and giggles.

 

 

 

(2) I'd hasten a guess that gas would be cheaper than the large scale research and construction of a nuclear weapon. More effective too. You'd be able to document each death maticulously (as they did) and avoid any nuclear fallout or other undesirables.

 

 

 

As for having nukes in the first place, I don't agree with anyone having them. As people have said, this is idealistic, not realistic.

[Sumpta]

Hitler was an environment activist, so I wouldn't be too sure he'd be keen on the fall-out consequences.

 

 

 

I believe nobody should have nuclear weapons, even as a so-called fail-safe. No country in this world ought to be or feel like it should be the policing nation. The use of nuclear bombs against Japan was a disgrace. By now, there is a consensus amongst many researchers of political history that the bombings were far from necessary and more a display/try-out of newly acquired weapons than anything else.

[dsavi]

I agree with dsavi_x4.

 

 

 

BUT I doupt it will happen soon. The big nations which have nukes (U.S.A, Russia, China) could (in utopia) make a deal, in which they dissample their nukes but in reality they propably would just hide them and then bring them up again if war comes (which in utopia wouldn't happen..)

 

 

 

Someone has mentioned me by name, my ego has never been higher!

 

 

 

What's all this junk about Utopia, anyway? Is that some sort of county? :oops:

[NorthernHero]

I agree with dsavi_x4.

 

 

 

BUT I doupt it will happen soon. The big nations which have nukes (U.S.A, Russia, China) could (in utopia) make a deal, in which they dissample their nukes but in reality they propably would just hide them and then bring them up again if war comes (which in utopia wouldn't happen..)

 

 

 

Someone has mentioned me by name, my ego has never been higher!

 

 

 

What's all this junk about Utopia, anyway? Is that some sort of county? :oops:

 

Someone has quoted me, my ego has never been higher! \

 

Hi five! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

You really don't know what utopia means? Ok.

 

Can't bother to explain it myself so here is where wiki jumps in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia check for yourself.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Hitler was an environment activist, so I wouldn't be too sure he'd be keen on the fall-out consequences.

 

Indeed. Considering all the wars Hitler raged were over "living space" primarily, the concept that Hitler would nuke his opponents, thus creating barron inhabitable wastelands of his new empire, seems a bit baffling to be honest. It defeats the whole purpose of the Volksgemeinschaft.

 

 

 

No one should have nucelar weapons. If I'm completely honest, I don't believe for one moment any of the world's leading democratic powers would consider using a nucelar weapon, especially the USA, which proclaims to the leader of the free world. Which beckons the question; why do they need them? They could smash any country's economy (other than China, maybe) by simply issueing an embargo against them.

[NorthernHero]

 

No one should have nucelar weapons. If I'm completely honest, I don't believe for one moment any of the world's leading democratic powers would consider using a nucelar weapon, especially the USA, which proclaims to the leader of the free world. Which beckons the question; why do they need them? They could smash any country's economy (other than China, maybe) by simply issueing an embargo against them.

 

 

 

This leads again to one of my favourite quotes:

People are stupid, and that is a well proven fact.

 

 

 

By the way, why don't you believe they wouldn't consider using a nuke? U.S has used nukes and that wasn't so long ago. And considering U.S latests actions, I woudn't keep it as so big suprice if they decited to nuke something again.

[Satenza]

Stupid people do not control countries. They must have an intelligence about them in order to be in the position to launch a nuclear bomb. No one in power is stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile. Especially countries like the USA, Russia, UK who believe it or not do not have dictators with a red button under their desks who can can press it when having a bad day. The only possible use of nuclear weapons would be if they got into terrorists hands, but they have not in the last 60 years.

[Umega]

I would think Hitler would of used a nuke on moscow, all of russia would of surrendered, making the east front safe from attack, but the rest of the allies would of still pushed through to germany on the west front. Hitler couldn't of used a nuke on america because it was too far off for a plane and Hitler wanted to deal with europe first.

 

 

 

Anyway, I don't think any country should have any nukes. Seeing as I can't see any use for them now, I really can't see a World War III taking place. Nukes are just too devasting anyway seeing as it would kill too many civilians.

[NorthernHero]

Stupid people do not control countries. They must have an intelligence about them in order to be in the position to launch a nuclear bomb. No one in power is stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile.

 

What? But it has happened. And to me, you have to be very stupid to launch a nuclear bomb. And a newsflash to you: you don't have to be very wise to control a country. For example lets take current U.S. president, he can't be very wise. :-k