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

Forums - General Discussion - Nuclear weapons - for or against?

steven787 said:

If I am living in the "user" country, for.
If I am living in the "usee" country, against.

Of course, morally I am against. But in the real world reason suggests that Nukes both deter and are capable of destroying enemies if needed.

If the world were run on morals crazy things would be happening.

Spoiled alcoholic oil-tychoon children would be elected president
The government would be able to get away with lying to it's people to start a war for profit.
Medical care would be too expensive for sick children on the basis of "I earned it I keep it".
Banks would be collapse because of bad lending.
Democracies would start wars.

Actually those things aren't moral or rational.

To a point... I mean... strategic alliances to a point can be used to deter war too... but eventually when you get to where everyone has a bunch of them... and you get WW1.

If more and more nations get nukes we'll eventually end up with a WW1 situation with nukes... where one mistake sets off a GIANT disaster...

and unlike the cold war, there isn't a giant pervassive fear of nuclear weapons anymore.  Which in itself is kinda scary.



Around the Network

mutual destruction is keeping countries like India and Pakistan from having war.
i am for nukes as a deterrent of war, i am against using nukes on any country though



Wii/Mario Kart Wii Code:2793-0686-5434

I'd prefer it if they didn't exist, but that's not going to happen.

It's not fair, but probably in everyone's best interests that they don't spread any further.



Since they exist and less democratic countries have them and more will get them, democratic countries NEED to also have access to them. That doesn't mean that every democratic country needs them but NATO should have access to nuclear deterrence.



Kyros said:
Since they exist and less democratic countries have them and more will get them, democratic countries NEED to also have access to them. That doesn't mean that every democratic country needs them but NATO should have access to nuclear deterrence.

This pretty much sums up my viewpoint. The Superpowers during the cold war used the principal of mutual assured destruction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction ) to prevent attacks on their interests from the opposing factions. Other members of the G7 followed suit and it was then impossible to stop smaller countries from trying to get access to the power on the world scene that possessing a nuke and the ballistic technology to fly it to a place of interest automatically and instantaneously gives you.

Hopefully, rogue states will one day become more docile which will allow not just for them to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_non_proliferation_treaty ) and eventually for all nations to disarm.

 



Around the Network

im against them



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

For.

On the off chance that all the crazy people are right and there really are real aliens somewhere, I'd like to be able to blow them up.  If they're hostile that is. 

I'd also like a few weapons even bigger and more powerful than nuclear ones.  My reason?  Well, I never really liked the moon anyway...



For nuclear weapons.  I've been 'dying' to see if the one religion I randomly chose out of the 2,000+ world religions was right about the end of the world.



against



against. Just too powerful and indiscriminate.