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

 

 

 

Thread should have ended here. If you have the power to choose who can have nukes, might as well deactivate all of them.

Only the U.S.A. deserves nukes.

If Hitler had a nuke, he would have used it on London. There's no way he could manage to get it all the way to America, and using it to kill Jews is inrealistic. Furthermore, Hitler really hated the British.

If Hitler had a nuke, he would have used it on London. There's no way he could manage to get it all the way to America, and using it to kill Jews is inrealistic. Furthermore, Hitler really hated the British.

 

yea, the Battle of Britain lasted 9 months of ceasless bombing, didn't it? Heavy stuff. Anyways, I read somewhere that a bunch of nukes startegically placed around the United States and other countries, if all detonated at once, could created an EMP burst sufficient to wipe out all electronics in the country, thus plunging us into the Stone Age, economic depression, etc etc. So a country with a strong economic grudge with another country should not be allowed to have nukes, though every country probably has some form of economic grudge/ want for economic takeover of another country. But I don;t want all nukes to disappear... :-k

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.

 

 

 

do you really think that the first time a nuclear weapon was used that anyone had any idea of the massive amounts of fall-out that would be left behind? no, thats why they were tested in deserted areas where nothing lived anyway, i mean im sure they had some guesses, but nobody knew for sure that the bomb would be destructive for years after it was detonated.

 

 

 

i doubt hitler would have had a clue. and if he was aware of the destructive power of a nuclear weapon, i'm sure he would have used it on his enemies in a heartbeat. someone like that obviously has no moral issues with it.

 

 

 

and who should be allowed to have nukes? if you can figure out how to make them, go ahead and make them, but don't expect to use them and live to see how it turns out. WW2 came as a shock to everyone. now, if anyone even suggests that they might be willing to use a weapon of mass destruction, people go ape[cabbage]. but nobody has the balls to actually end the world.

 

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.

 

 

 

America Uses Nuke on Country = Everyone Uses nukes on America

...They could smash any country's economy (other than China, maybe) by simply issueing an embargo against them.

 

Just a little question, what about Cuba?

 

 

 

If people are so sure that nobody is currently willing to use atomic bombs against anyone else, what would be the point of having them, then? Just as a last resource in case a new World War happens?

america, 'nuff said.

If people are so sure that nobody is currently willing to use atomic bombs against anyone else, what would be the point of having them, then? Just as a last resource in case a new World War happens?

 

The reason people are sure they won't use them is because of how many people have them. You're not going to attack someone who you know can retaliate back with as much or more force. It's pretty much impossible to prove that you don't have nuclear weapons so you couldn't possibly enforce everyone getting rid of them. That means if you ever tried to do something such as that, there would inevitably be hold outs who claim to have gotten rid of them but haven't. Then you're in an even worse situation than before.

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

 

 

 

If you think Bush can suddenly decide to launch a nuclear bomb then you need to engage your brain. The USA is the leading democratic superpower, you honestly believe that his word is that of a tyranical leader? You really think he has enough power to launch a nuclear bomb on his command? Do you think that they let one man have that much control over the most devestating weapon we can use, devestating in the sense of it first killing millions of people and potentially ending the world as we know it? Of course not, you make it seem that he is [developmentally delayed]ed, and has some God like powers to do the most undemocratic and ridiculous thing imaginable in the country so hellbent on spreading democracy.

 

 

 

Yes i agree, the USA's foreign policy is a shambles but then again it has been for the majority of it's existance. For a country that now wants to throw democracy around the globe has a long past in enstating tyranical leaders into power and supporting their regimes.

 

 

 

However no one is stupid enough to actually believe that one man now holds the power to destroy the world, and certainly not an American president and certainly not George Bush.

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

 

 

 

I seriously can't understand how people can underestimate the intelligence of a man like George Bush. You act as if you'd be able to control a super-power with more ease than him. How old are you - 9? :roll:

Only the U.S.A. deserves nukes.

 

 

 

america, 'nuff said.

 

 

 

Err... Why?

 

 

 

America, of all the developed nations, probably deserves nukes the least, because it's the most powerful country. That way, we couldn't take over the world...

Hitler couldn't reach the US, and if her used them (no way they would have more than a few) then the US would just get even more pissed off. Germany as a country was in shambles a few years the US entered. Near the end of the war, everyday there were daily thousands of bombers obliterating every major city in Germany. Near D-Day (when Hitler was closest to having a bomb) Germany was in shambles, barly 5% of its info structure was alive. Meanwhile the US homeland (the size of the entire European continent, with vast natural resources) was untouched and pumping out planes, bombs, and guns 24/7. Germany could have only pissed off the US a little bit more, but no way would they have "won".

 

 

 

As for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Firebombing other towns killed just as many people. The only real difference was firebombing used 500 planes and thousands of gallons of napalm, a nuke uses 1 plane and 1 bomb. So why use the Nuke? Well, intimidation. The US could have firebombed 10 cities and Japan wouldn't care, but after seeing how powerful 1 bomb is? They knew they couldn't win.

 

 

 

 

 

Should countries have Nukes? Well if there were none than large scale, WW2 type wars would be more likely (China or Russia vs the US would have been inevitable)

 

So as arrogant as it sounds, I think only counties like the US, UK/France, Russia, and China should have nukes. If the US, Russia, and China have nukes, no large scale war will ever break out between them. You can never take out every nuke a country owns and it only takes one to kill your citizens, thus China and the US can't have a large scale war since in the end the looser will just use their nukes and both sides know this is the case. It's also good for UK/France/Germany to have a few nukes to prevent counties like Russia from getting to aggressive. If only superpowers had nukes they might get a little cocky and push the other counties around. But counties like the UK and France are big enough to be responsible with the nukes, but small enough to be respected and allied with dozens of other mid sized counties, thus providing security for all of them.

 

 

 

Then there are countries like Pakistan and Iran, counties that have/want nukes and are quite unstable. Not to be racist but the fact that these counties are Islamic is a problem. An unstable non Islamic county (let's say Mexico) could have nukes and it wouldn't be that bad since they aren't stupid enough to use them knowing their citizens would be killed in the counterstrike. However Islamic counties are a problem, you see there are radicals that believe God will protect them and their mission is to kill as many non believes as possible. Yes these people exist in other religions as well but in Islam these people often become leaders. If one of these people come to power in a nuclear capable country... it will only take a minor spark of global affairs to set off a nuclear exchange.

Only the U.S.A. deserves nukes.

 

 

 

america, 'nuff said.

 

 

 

Err... Why?

 

 

 

America, of all the developed nations, probably deserves nukes the least, because it's the most powerful country. That way, we couldn't take over the world...

 

:-s

 

 

 

Yes, I agree it's arrogant and stupid to say that only the US should have nukes (i.e., I agree with trapical for the most part), but to take the other extreme seems even less reasonable. Please, explain your reasoning for me before I end up forcing myself into some kind of anti-anti-America-and-Bush rant.

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

 

 

 

If you think Bush can suddenly decide to launch a nuclear bomb then you need to engage your brain. The USA is the leading democratic superpower, you honestly believe that his word is that of a tyranical leader? You really think he has enough power to launch a nuclear bomb on his command? Do you think that they let one man have that much control over the most devestating weapon we can use, devestating in the sense of it first killing millions of people and potentially ending the world as we know it? Of course not, you make it seem that he is [developmentally delayed], and has some God like powers to do the most undemocratic and ridiculous thing imaginable in the country so hellbent on spreading democracy.

 

 

 

Yes i agree, the USA's foreign policy is a shambles but then again it has been for the majority of it's existance. For a country that now wants to throw democracy around the globe has a long past in enstating tyranical leaders into power and supporting their regimes.

 

 

 

However no one is stupid enough to actually believe that one man now holds the power to destroy the world, and certainly not an American president and certainly not George Bush.

 

 

 

When did I say Bush has power to launch nuclear missile? Thats right, never. I said U.S. has used nuclear bombs. And.. correct me if i'm wrong, the president does the final decicion on using nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

I seriously can't understand how people can underestimate the intelligence of a man like George Bush. You act as if you'd be able to control a super-power with more ease than him. How old are you - 9?

You got me little wrong here. I didin't say he is mentally delayed or something. But surely there are better men to lead the country. One thing that makes him "not very wise" in my eyes is that he is pro- war. And no, i'm not 9, but even 9 years old know that war is stupid.

well..as someone who lives in a country under threat (Israel) the "assumption" we have some nukes (never officially admitted) does carry some benefits(like discouraging any arab thoughts of gangbanging us).

 

On the other hand i am not sure that Ahmadinejad was so eager to get one himself if it wasnt for us....

Nukes = Turning point in civilizations.

 

 

 

 

 

Either we use them, wiping out ourselves, and wrecking our planet, or we don't use them, and we eventually spread to other worlds so that nukes aren't as big of a problem anymore...

 

 

 

 

 

What I really don't get is how everyone is falling for the SAME DAMN TRICK?!? The U.S. did this when we wanted the oil in Iraq. Seen any wmds in Iraq? And as for the people who don't want nukes in the hands of 'religous extremists', have you people not noticed who controls the US, as well as most of the worlds nukes? Thats right, Extreme-right christians. Otherwise known as RELIGOUS EXTREMISTS... The exact same people who brought you the OTHER 'War(s) to end all wars', Vietnam, Korea, Iraq Season 1, and many, many other tragedies.

 

 

 

That's why I'm going to be building a fallout shelter deep in the middle of some desert. I would build it in the Antartic, but seeing as how the ice caps are going to be gone in 20 years, that'd be kinda pointless. Oh well, maybe the galaxy would be better off without humanity, seeing as how we've done such a great job when we're stuck on this particular ball of mud. :roll:

 

When did I say Bush has power to launch nuclear missile? Thats right, never. I said U.S. has used nuclear bombs. And.. correct me if i'm wrong, the president does the final decision on using nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

There is the Three Man Rule. Five people carry missile codes and it takes three of them to launch a missile. I think the five people are the President, VP, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

 

 

 

The President does play a big role though, it's not like the other four can get together and launch a missile without him knowing. He can veto the actions whenever he wants but in case he's incapacitated or something the others can act.

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

 

 

 

If you think Bush can suddenly decide to launch a nuclear bomb then you need to engage your brain. The USA is the leading democratic superpower, you honestly believe that his word is that of a tyranical leader? You really think he has enough power to launch a nuclear bomb on his command? Do you think that they let one man have that much control over the most devestating weapon we can use, devestating in the sense of it first killing millions of people and potentially ending the world as we know it? Of course not, you make it seem that he is [developmentally delayed], and has some God like powers to do the most undemocratic and ridiculous thing imaginable in the country so hellbent on spreading democracy.

 

 

 

Yes i agree, the USA's foreign policy is a shambles but then again it has been for the majority of it's existance. For a country that now wants to throw democracy around the globe has a long past in enstating tyranical leaders into power and supporting their regimes.

 

 

 

However no one is stupid enough to actually believe that one man now holds the power to destroy the world, and certainly not an American president and certainly not George Bush.

 

 

 

When did I say Bush has power to launch nuclear missile? Thats right, never. I said U.S. has used nuclear bombs. And.. correct me if i'm wrong, the president does the final decicion on using nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

Right ok, so your justification now for the USA launching a nuclear weapon is not that Bush "can't be very wise", but you claim it is because they have done so in the past, in the 1940's. Well did any of the axis powers have nuclear bombs? Or did any other country in the world have nuclear bombs to retaliate? Times change and so do situations, if you want an answer to the question "Would the USA launch a nuclear misile if the conditions of the world were the same as they were in 1945?" then i would agree it could be possible, however that is 70 years ago.

I vote that nobody gets a nuke. Keeps it fair.

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

 

 

 

If you think Bush can suddenly decide to launch a nuclear bomb then you need to engage your brain. The USA is the leading democratic superpower, you honestly believe that his word is that of a tyranical leader? You really think he has enough power to launch a nuclear bomb on his command? Do you think that they let one man have that much control over the most devestating weapon we can use, devestating in the sense of it first killing millions of people and potentially ending the world as we know it? Of course not, you make it seem that he is [developmentally delayed], and has some God like powers to do the most undemocratic and ridiculous thing imaginable in the country so hellbent on spreading democracy.

 

 

 

Yes i agree, the USA's foreign policy is a shambles but then again it has been for the majority of it's existance. For a country that now wants to throw democracy around the globe has a long past in enstating tyranical leaders into power and supporting their regimes.

 

 

 

However no one is stupid enough to actually believe that one man now holds the power to destroy the world, and certainly not an American president and certainly not George Bush.

 

 

 

When did I say Bush has power to launch nuclear missile? Thats right, never. I said U.S. has used nuclear bombs. And.. correct me if i'm wrong, the president does the final decicion on using nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

Right ok, so your justification now for the USA launching a nuclear weapon is not that Bush "can't be very wise", but you claim it is because they have done so in the past, in the 1940's. Well did any of the axis powers have nuclear bombs? Or did any other country in the world have nuclear bombs to retaliate? Times change and so do situations, if you want an answer to the question "Would the USA launch a nuclear misile if the conditions of the world were the same as they were in 1945?" then i would agree it could be possible, however that is 70 years ago.

 

Gotta admit you've got a point there :-k .

Only the U.S.A. deserves nukes.

 

 

 

america, 'nuff said.

 

 

 

Err... Why?

 

 

 

America, of all the developed nations, probably deserves nukes the least, because it's the most powerful country. That way, we couldn't take over the world...

 

:-s

 

 

 

Yes, I agree it's arrogant and stupid to say that only the US should have nukes (i.e., I agree with trapical for the most part), but to take the other extreme seems even less reasonable. Please, explain your reasoning for me before I end up forcing myself into some kind of anti-anti-America-and-Bush rant.

U.S.A. deserves them because we are white and are the most powerful country in the world. Bush and Hitler are cool.

Only the U.S.A. deserves nukes.

 

 

 

america, 'nuff said.

 

 

 

Err... Why?

 

 

 

America, of all the developed nations, probably deserves nukes the least, because it's the most powerful country. That way, we couldn't take over the world...

 

:-s

 

 

 

Yes, I agree it's arrogant and stupid to say that only the US should have nukes (i.e., I agree with trapical for the most part), but to take the other extreme seems even less reasonable. Please, explain your reasoning for me before I end up forcing myself into some kind of anti-anti-America-and-Bush rant.

U.S.A. deserves them because we are white and are the most powerful country in the world. Bush and Hitler are cool.

 

 

 

Amen, brother. Amen.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

 

 

 

I don't think nukes ever should have been created in the first place. Oh well, not much we can do about it at this point. Only time will tell...

 

 

 

What I really don't get is how everyone is falling for the SAME DAMN TRICK?!? The U.S. did this when we wanted the oil in Iraq. Seen any wmds in Iraq? And as for the people who don't want nukes in the hands of 'religous extremists', have you people not noticed who controls the US, as well as most of the worlds nukes? Thats right, Extreme-right christians. Otherwise known as RELIGOUS EXTREMISTS... The exact same people who brought you the OTHER 'War(s) to end all wars', Vietnam, Korea, Iraq Season 1, and many, many other tragedies.

 

 

Hah, so true.

 

 

 

U.S.A. deserves them because we are white and are the most powerful country in the world. Bush and Hitler are cool.

 

I hope that's sarcasm :-k .