Would The World Be Better Off Without Nukes?

[Lavindathar]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Nor do I think retaliation would have been a deterrent.

I disagree with this entirely. You would not nuke a country, if it was going to nuke you back. FULL STOP!

[Night Stalker]

But destruction was not a deterrent. Hitler had the Luffte Waffe launch well over 100 V2s (the first ICBM) at Britain, in addittion to regular sorties. The Allies responded with the systemic destruction of Germany's industrial capability, culminating with Dresden. Germany still did not yield, nor did it stop the V2s, until the Allies were litterally on the streets of Berlin. Not even Dresden (which again was more destructive than Fat Man and Little Boy combined) quailed them.

Also Germany was very close to their own A-bomb and had plans of attatching it to a V2.

Every one makes a big stink about "nukes". There are conventional weapons that are every bit as destructive in yields. A single solar flare carries more ionizing radiation to Earth than multiple nuclear MIRV detonations (no exact figures) yet there are no campains to "End the Solar Environmental Threat".

I'm not making light of the threat of nukes, just noting that they are not the be all - end all.

[edited to complete thought]

[ 01-08-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lavindathar: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: Nor do I think retaliation would have been a deterrent.

I disagree with this entirely. You would not nuke a country, if it was going to nuke you back. FULL STOP![/QUOTE]Once Hitler realised he had lost, he killed himself and his lover.

What makes you think, if he had a nuke, he wouldn't have used it? Especially knowing that Jews of America would be amongst the winners.

I think it's a certainty, that had Hitler the nuclear firepower the US or Russia had during the cold war, the world would be no more.

His world is no more.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: would be nice if everybody hd nuclear weapons but when a nuclear war really starts, the bombs dont work [img]smile.gif[/img]

Did you read this before you posted?
It would be nice if everybody had nuclear weapons????

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard I try, I can't understand the logic behind this.
What purpose exactly would everybody having nuclear weapons serve?
Some might say to deter war, but the better deterent would be common sense. Nuclear weapons have NEVER detered war whatsever. They may have stopped other nuclear powers from launching warheads, but that's a moot point if no one has them.
And just exactly what are we supposed to do with all these nuclear weapons that everybody has? Obviously they can't be used so....

[Animal]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. I expected to see this thread full of people saying that yes, we would be better off without them, but instead I find the exact opposite.

I will never understand why it is necessary for the world to destroy itself.
daan made an excellent point.
Nobody thought the the WTC would ever be attacked and destroyed in the manner that is was. Five years ago it was unthinkable and quite a laughable proposition.
Having said that, could you imagine what would happen if just one terrorist managed to detonate the US's own warheads on US soil. Granted I have no idea how how that could possible happen, but it is a possibility however remote it may be. I again direct you to the WTC incident. It was thought of as an impossible scenario.
Nuclear weapons have only one purpose: To kill, maim and injure a s**tload of people. They certainly weren't developed to deter war. The possibility of a nuclear accident is very real.
However, it is a moot point. We have them, now what are we supposed to do with them?

[Night Stalker]

The real scary thing about the WTC was not that it was not thought of .... but dismissed.

I still stand by "the world would not be better without nukes". People would still find ways of eliminating eachothers bloodlines.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: The real scary thing about the WTC was not that it was not thought of .... but dismissed. I still stand by "the world would not be better without nukes". People would still find ways of eliminating eachothers bloodlines.

For sure, not having nukes wouldn't do anything to stop war, but nukes have a bad habit of involving people who don't want to be involved.

[Night Stalker]

The thug that victimises people does a nice job of involving people that don't want to be involed in a mugging too. It's not the nukes that are the problem, just tools used by the problem.

[Yorick]

And what of the underlying fear nuclear weapons caused our generation? WHat about that. The uncertainty of knowing that the whole WORLD could be destroyed at the touch of a madmans button.

You don't think that every boy, girl, man woman and child, would sleep just that little bit easier if that fact was erased? If the perilous state of the planet was taken out of the equation.

I'm not suggesting that people are quaking in their boots, nor that there wouldn't/aren't other fears more relevant in a persons life.

However, I don't see how some can arguing that removing such a backdrop from peoples minds wouldn't be a better reality.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: The thug that victimises people does a nice job of involving people that don't want to be involed in a mugging too. It's not the nukes that are the problem, just tools used by the problem.

Wouldn't you want to eliminate the thug who's mugging people? It's too bad we couldn't put nukes in prison.