Who thinks nuclear weapons are a good thing?

[Laika]

In lieu of current affairs, with good ol' Obama and the Ruskies finally agreeing to take serious steps to reduce both of their stockpiles which currently take up around 95% of all world nukes.

Who thinks this reduction in arms is a bad thing and why, I certainly do think it's a good thing, being a liberal pussy'ole and everything. I'm not looking for agreement, I'm looking for people who genuinely believe the bomb is a good thing.

[Vapor17]

how can a bomb be a good thing ? :S:S

[JAKE911]

Yeah it killed thousands of people. That's NOT good.

[vertigu9219]

The bomb was a good thing for a lot of people who survived ww2 in the pacific. The Japanese had orders to kill 10's of thousands of prisoners of war as soon as the Americans set foot on Japanese soil. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only saved them but helped to steer the world into peace. The threat of mutually assured destruction stopped the cold war from breaking out into a "shooting" war fo the best part of 5 decades. But given that they are only talking about a 95% reduction of warheads i guess they will still have more than enough to blow us all to hell.

[Laika]

I think it's an anti-cold war mentality. 'If we stop, will you?' sort of thing. Even if it isn't entire eradication you've gotta admire the fact that this move is completely against the American foreign policy we've all come to know and love, in the past few years. So long as we get those darned ICBM defense systems actually working and try not to antagonise Iran (let's face it, North Korea aren't exactly a threat) everything should be peachy.

[Noscaasi]

If it wasnt for the nuclear bomb there wouldnt be nuclear power and that will be useful for a long time to come. Unfortunatly for you I agree nuclear weapons should be scrapped.

[impjim]

The reason nukes are important is that if a country has a lot of them then they wont be attacked by other countries. Also if USA for example thought that Iran might attack them they can adopt a "as soon as you start on us, we have these" attitude, thus creating a "nuclear stalemate". On the other hand the removal of these weopons could prevent world destruction in the future. Nuclear bombs now-a-days are very powerful meaning that one or two bombs could easily cause nuclear winter meaning that the dust and debris from the explosion doesn't settle and can spread to cover whole continents.

I guess the thing to do would be to get rid of some bombs and not others so that the major powers dont run get carried away. Yeah i'm sat on the fence for this one :P

EDIT: reading the above post ^ ^ ^ i remembered that in America they want to see if the radiation from a nuke can be harnessed for power. that could be interesting.

[Haza103]

In the case of the USA bombing Japan, it wasn't all down to revenge (Though i would be pretty pissed if someone sneak attacked me), you have to look at how many causalties there would be if the war continued, and compare that to how many a bomb that size wold cause. Saying that, does it inlude the people who die due to mutations and such because of the after effect :S

[ardjoe]

I actually think Nuclear bombs are a good way to defend.

Look at the alternatives of them firstly; In the Veitnamanese war, the Amercians used chemical bombs which have left the land (even after all these years) still fatal to completely innocent civilians. Poisoning the land.

I know nukes arent't exacltly enviromentally friendly, but the impact of them does not last for over 50 years.

[PandaPanic!]

I don't think they will reduce their nukes by that much it won't be long until Russia ain't telling them exact figures of how many of their nuclear weapons they have destroyed besides they ain't a threat to anyone because there army is crap. And even if a country did start on America look at how many allies it has on it's side.

I don't think a country will ever bomb another country with nuclear weapons unless if they have nuclear weapons of their own because they would just be asking for them to go and attack them back and besides we all know the risks of what can happen after things like Hiroshima.

[Oyarsa]

The Atomic Nuclear Bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, in my eyes, necessary, and served its purpose.

It's all about statistics. Thousands of deaths is bad, yes. Alcohol has killed millions of people, but we still praise it as something "cool". However, were it not for the immediate surrender after the Nagasaki bombing, hundreds of thousands of Americans and civilians would've died in Operation Downfall that would follow in October (massive land invasion). They choose the lesser of two evils.

Not to mention, Nuclear Weapons are never going to be used by nations that don't base every action on religion and belief. They are weapons of discussion, and are used for status during a verbal conflict. The M.A.D agreement (Mutually Assured Destruction) dictates that both parties would be equally destroyed in a Nuclear War, which would result in failure to gain on any front. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a very good example of this, or rather, the phone conversation between Kennedy and Khrushchev, which sums up exactly what nuclear war really is.

So no, Nuclear Weapons are by default no better or worse than any other weapon or tool used during war. They have served their purpose in the past, yes, but that doesn't mean they are part of the good team.

Hydrogen bombs/Thermonuclear bombs? No. They are simply FAR too powerful, and have no purpose on this planet. In the hands of those that don't practice rationality when it comes to making decisions, these weapons could mean the end of the world.

[NB]

In a way it reduces war because the 2 countries point the missiles at each other but don't fire because it will just end up blowing up each other.

[vertigu9219]

In a way it reduces war because the 2 countries point the missiles at each other but don't fire because it will just end up blowing up each other.

Thats MAD.