By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why the world still needs nuclear weapons

Kasz216 on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
mrstickball said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

Does not change the fact there were no viable alternatives.

What would you rather happen:

  • Kill 250,000 Japanese
  • Kill 1,00,000 Americans, 3,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 20 years
  • Kill 15,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 15 years

I'd choose #1 every time. Using horriffic weapons is never a great option, but in rare cases, there is no 'better' option.

I've said it before, and I will say it again:

Using the nuke on Japan is the reason I exist today. Rhubang may have been at Hiroshima during its anniversary, but so was my grandpa over 64 years ago. He was part of the shore team that was to invade Japan in the case of an invasion. There is a high probability he would of died, thus preventing me from living. I'd imagine there are many other VGCers that would have had their lives removed from them had a ground war, or mass starvation been the answer for the war.

If the US was nuked by a military power would it be right? If it avoided more deaths on both sides, but it would leave us a broken and crippled country?

Yes?

If the other options were a massive invasion that would destroy the US worse and kill more people or something that would kill a large majority of the civilian population... of course it would.



Around the Network
KingFate on 12 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
mrstickball said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

Does not change the fact there were no viable alternatives.

What would you rather happen:

  • Kill 250,000 Japanese
  • Kill 1,00,000 Americans, 3,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 20 years
  • Kill 15,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 15 years

I'd choose #1 every time. Using horriffic weapons is never a great option, but in rare cases, there is no 'better' option.

I've said it before, and I will say it again:

Using the nuke on Japan is the reason I exist today. Rhubang may have been at Hiroshima during its anniversary, but so was my grandpa over 64 years ago. He was part of the shore team that was to invade Japan in the case of an invasion. There is a high probability he would of died, thus preventing me from living. I'd imagine there are many other VGCers that would have had their lives removed from them had a ground war, or mass starvation been the answer for the war.

If the US was nuked by a military power would it be right? If it avoided more deaths on both sides, but it would leave us a broken and crippled country?

Yes?

If the other options were a massive invasion that would destroy the US worse and kill more people or something that would kill a large majority of the civilian population... of course it would.

Then I do agree with that, I misinterpted you. I think I have spoken to too many overly patriotic people. >.< I have seen people be very situational when they support the horrors of war. The day is yours.



PSN ID: KingFate_

mrstickball on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
mrstickball said:

Does not change the fact there were no viable alternatives.

What would you rather happen:

  • Kill 250,000 Japanese
  • Kill 1,00,000 Americans, 3,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 20 years
  • Kill 15,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 15 years

I'd choose #1 every time. Using horriffic weapons is never a great option, but in rare cases, there is no 'better' option.

I've said it before, and I will say it again:

Using the nuke on Japan is the reason I exist today. Rhubang may have been at Hiroshima during its anniversary, but so was my grandpa over 64 years ago. He was part of the shore team that was to invade Japan in the case of an invasion. There is a high probability he would of died, thus preventing me from living. I'd imagine there are many other VGCers that would have had their lives removed from them had a ground war, or mass starvation been the answer for the war.

If the US was nuked by a military power would it be right? If it avoided more deaths on both sides, but it would leave us a broken and crippled country?

It would be right if we were pursuing the kind of inhuman subjugation and destruction of Asia like the Japanese did in WW2.

Secondly, nuking Japan didn't break and cripple the country - the carpet bombings of everywhere else by conventional means did.

Which city would you of prefered to live in after the bombing?

Take your pick of a city. Guess which ones were nuked, and which ones weren't. You can't tell me that the damage to Tokyo or Osaka were any less economically destructive than Hiroshima, Dresden, or Nagasaki.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 12 April 2010

Oh, and to answer the question:

I'd much rather have LA, NY and Chicago nuked to kingdom come, and know that ~40-50 years later the cities would be back vibrant as ever as opposed to an invasion of the US, and the systematic destruction of a hundreds million Americans by conventional means.

I'd rather see 5 Americans die than 500.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

SamuelRSmith on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.

The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.

Spare me your clichés.

I think the thing that's keeping the UK safe is that we're not in strikable distance of anybody who would be willing to use a nuclear warhead against us. Hell, thanks to the EU, we're pretty much a million miles away from anybody who would want to attack us in any sorts of means (outside of terrorism, etc. but possessing nuclear weapons hardly stopped the IRA, or any of the modern terrorist groups from attacking us).

Plus, a nuclear-free UK would still have support from a nuclear-possessing USA and/or France. Would it be wrong for the UK to free-load off of nuclear allies? Probably. But, frankly, I don't give a shit. The USA have unwittingly taken on the burden of being the protectors of Western Europe and her other allies, and France... well, that's just full of French people. :P



Around the Network
KingFate on 12 April 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.

The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.

Spare me your clichés.

I think the thing that's keeping the UK safe is that we're not in strikable distance of anybody who would be willing to use a nuclear warhead against us. Hell, thanks to the EU, we're pretty much a million miles away from anybody who would want to attack us in any sorts of means (outside of terrorism, etc. but possessing nuclear weapons hardly stopped the IRA, or any of the modern terrorist groups from attacking us).

Plus, a nuclear-free UK would still have support from a nuclear-possessing USA and/or France. Would it be wrong for the UK to free-load off of nuclear allies? Probably. But, frankly, I don't give a shit. The USA have unwittingly taken on the burden of being the protectors of Western Europe and her other allies, and France... well, that's just full of French people. :P

The thing is once you have them you are kind of stuck with them in someways. WMD's are like a bad case of herpies, you can try as hard as you can, but it's never gone. The only way you are going to get rid of them is if the nation collapses.  



PSN ID: KingFate_

SamuelRSmith on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.

The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.

Spare me your clichés.

I think the thing that's keeping the UK safe is that we're not in strikable distance of anybody who would be willing to use a nuclear warhead against us. Hell, thanks to the EU, we're pretty much a million miles away from anybody who would want to attack us in any sorts of means (outside of terrorism, etc. but possessing nuclear weapons hardly stopped the IRA, or any of the modern terrorist groups from attacking us).

Plus, a nuclear-free UK would still have support from a nuclear-possessing USA and/or France. Would it be wrong for the UK to free-load off of nuclear allies? Probably. But, frankly, I don't give a shit. The USA have unwittingly taken on the burden of being the protectors of Western Europe and her other allies, and France... well, that's just full of French people. :P

The thing is once you have them you are kind of stuck with them in someways. WMD's are like a bad case of herpies, you can try as hard as you can, but it's never gone. The only way you are going to get rid of them is if the nation collapses.  

That, or they dispose of them. Trident (our nuclear scheme) is requiring a renewal soon (basically, renewing all the technology, etc), it's expected to cost up to £100bn - not supporting this renewal, and letting the thing just die would be a very wise choice for any Government hoping to cut deficits in the coming years, without attacking any of the welfare systems which would piss off voters - which all the main parties are pledging to do in the coming election.



Kasz216 on 12 April 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.

The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.

Spare me your clichés.

I think the thing that's keeping the UK safe is that we're not in strikable distance of anybody who would be willing to use a nuclear warhead against us. Hell, thanks to the EU, we're pretty much a million miles away from anybody who would want to attack us in any sorts of means (outside of terrorism, etc. but possessing nuclear weapons hardly stopped the IRA, or any of the modern terrorist groups from attacking us).

Plus, a nuclear-free UK would still have support from a nuclear-possessing USA and/or France. Would it be wrong for the UK to free-load off of nuclear allies? Probably. But, frankly, I don't give a shit. The USA have unwittingly taken on the burden of being the protectors of Western Europe and her other allies, and France... well, that's just full of French people. :P

Kinda depends how the whole Iran situation goes.  Afterall that's why Obama revamped the shield.

I wouldnt't say the USA has unwittingly taken on the burden of protecting western europe either.

I think it did it on purpose.  Why I don't know... it's long past where Europe can't take care of themselves.

The Europeon Union as a combined force isn't quite USA level, but there isn't another country out their that could challenge them, well assuming that the command bottlenecks don't screw them up... but even then... who's going to take on the EU conventionally even with Nukes?  Russia?

Russia really isn't a threat to the EU anymore, so long as the Western EU countries are willing to be proactive when the eastern EU countries are threatened.



pastro243 on 12 April 2010

Its not like Obama wants to get rid of every nuclear weapon, anyway, I think having bombs to blow the earth in a few seconds is a bit too much and I like the fact that they get rid of some of them, I dont want to get involved in stupid wars between countries I dont care about.

And I dont think terrorist will care about nuclear bombs getting launched on them, its not like someone will ever do that since there is no place where there are exclusively terrorists so you wpuld kill alot of people that have nothing to with the problem. Its like trowing a grenade to kill a bug.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

KingFate on 12 April 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.

The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.

Spare me your clichés.

I think the thing that's keeping the UK safe is that we're not in strikable distance of anybody who would be willing to use a nuclear warhead against us. Hell, thanks to the EU, we're pretty much a million miles away from anybody who would want to attack us in any sorts of means (outside of terrorism, etc. but possessing nuclear weapons hardly stopped the IRA, or any of the modern terrorist groups from attacking us).

Plus, a nuclear-free UK would still have support from a nuclear-possessing USA and/or France. Would it be wrong for the UK to free-load off of nuclear allies? Probably. But, frankly, I don't give a shit. The USA have unwittingly taken on the burden of being the protectors of Western Europe and her other allies, and France... well, that's just full of French people. :P

The thing is once you have them you are kind of stuck with them in someways. WMD's are like a bad case of herpies, you can try as hard as you can, but it's never gone. The only way you are going to get rid of them is if the nation collapses.  

That, or they dispose of them. Trident (our nuclear scheme) is requiring a renewal soon (basically, renewing all the technology, etc), it's expected to cost up to £100bn - not supporting this renewal, and letting the thing just die would be a very wise choice for any Government hoping to cut deficits in the coming years, without attacking any of the welfare systems which would piss off voters - which all the main parties are pledging to do in the coming election.

Well imo, I feel that military is one of the number one things you should fund. If you can do anything make sure you have a strong defense. I like my governments to keep their hands off most things. In some ways I come very close to being a Libertarian.



PSN ID: KingFate_