After reading some of the comments on the latest instance of North Korea's insanity, I began thinking, "Is it ever right to launch nukes first?". I'm still not sure what my answer is, so I thought I would see what everyone here had to say on the matter. Also, please don't just give an answer. Include your reasoning for the sake discussion. Finally, keep in mind that this question is not specifically regarding North Korea, that was just the catalyst for this line of thought.
Poll: Morality in Nuclear War
- Thread starter Shane the Llama
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That.Aby_Z said:
But in that instance, you are killing innocent men and women, destroying houses, making the surrounding land radiated, thus leading to additional immense suffering of said innocents.
Used against soldiers though? I think that's fine. But then again, the radiation...
Do you mean Preemptive as in "before any violence starts we will launch this nuke" or "we are at war, we will launch our nukes before they do"?
In the first scenario no, I don't think anyone should take it upon themselves to end life in that massive and remote a fashion, also any preemptive nuclear launch will result in massive worldwide violence.
In the second scenario it gets a bit more tricky, Hiroshima was I think a reasonable decision, I don't know if I could have made it, but with the suffering and enourmous death rate in the pacific conflict stopping the war was a good thing. (obviously the destruction of an entire city and the millions of health problems continuing today as a result are terrible)
In the first scenario no, I don't think anyone should take it upon themselves to end life in that massive and remote a fashion, also any preemptive nuclear launch will result in massive worldwide violence.
In the second scenario it gets a bit more tricky, Hiroshima was I think a reasonable decision, I don't know if I could have made it, but with the suffering and enourmous death rate in the pacific conflict stopping the war was a good thing. (obviously the destruction of an entire city and the millions of health problems continuing today as a result are terrible)
And that's why America came in later to help fix things up. If a country used a nuke, it should then be their responsiblity to clean up the mess it makes. That may help to make things seem more fair.Skeleton Jelly said:
Then again, we could just not have anyone ever use nukes. Nukes will only lead this world off the tracks early.
True, but I think it'd be alright in instances like, oh I don't know, Racoon City!Aby_Z said:
But aside from that, we have bombs that are already much much bigger than Hiroshima and Nagasakis nukes. So those could and would be the better option. Although I'm not sure if they're radiological.
I have a very interesting pictures. It's actually pretty scary as well, but I don't know how to post pictures yet (lol).
You've got a wonderful attitude yourself.Jenny Creed said:
It's looked back at as a mistake because people don't see how much more life might've been lost if it hadn't been dropped. It's like how the current recession we're in, everyone's pissed with how it's been handled, but if it wasn't handled how it was, we'd be right back in that great depression.
There can be a right time for anything, and a Nuke certainly can have its' uses. You complaining about peoples opinions on a poll, however, is simply idiotic.
Not if those opinions are patently idiotic.
Yeah, sure, there is a right time to ensure the destruction of civilization. It's when too many fucktards grow up thinking using nukes on people is a good idea, as if building them wasn't stupid enough. Then it'll happen all by itself.
Just don't come whining to me when it happens, unless you want a big scoop of "Told you so".
Yeah, sure, there is a right time to ensure the destruction of civilization. It's when too many fucktards grow up thinking using nukes on people is a good idea, as if building them wasn't stupid enough. Then it'll happen all by itself.
Just don't come whining to me when it happens, unless you want a big scoop of "Told you so".
Nuclear Deterrent only works for nations. It does not work for fanatics. For example, A nuclear war that kills millions on each side of the fence means absolutely nothing to Islamic radicals as it gets them through the door to heaven. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
A nation has much, much more to lose so it works in that regard.
A nation has much, much more to lose so it works in that regard.
All out nuclear war in todays world is highly unlikely. The USA knows this, Obama revised the US nuclear strategy, Stating that the USA will not use nuclear weapons on any non-nuclear capable state that complies with the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty even if they attack the US with biological or chemical weapons. Although this excludes Iran and North Korea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?_r=1
Rogue States and terrorist are far more a threat nowadays, where preemptively striking them wont make much sense.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki I dont really see as a mistake. If they didnt drop the bombs, how would you explain all the loss of Allied lives, if we had this bomb that we chose not to use, that could of ended the war, but instead we decided to invade Japan.
OT: A preemptive stike depends on a lot of things, you have nothing to gain by nuking a city preemptively. You would most likely preemptively strike another nations nuclear sites that are hard to kill, like missile silo,s but even bunker busters could do the job. I find it hard to see a scenario where you would absolutely need nukes as a preemptive strike.
So i cant really rate in this poll, just thought id give my opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?_r=1
Rogue States and terrorist are far more a threat nowadays, where preemptively striking them wont make much sense.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki I dont really see as a mistake. If they didnt drop the bombs, how would you explain all the loss of Allied lives, if we had this bomb that we chose not to use, that could of ended the war, but instead we decided to invade Japan.
OT: A preemptive stike depends on a lot of things, you have nothing to gain by nuking a city preemptively. You would most likely preemptively strike another nations nuclear sites that are hard to kill, like missile silo,s but even bunker busters could do the job. I find it hard to see a scenario where you would absolutely need nukes as a preemptive strike.
So i cant really rate in this poll, just thought id give my opinion.
I'd say no, unless you're 100% sure that the opposition will hit you with similar weapons if you don't. There is still something like proportionality and avoiding civil targets.
You have to go through a lot of protocols before the option is even available. But it's best to strike them before they strike you. But make sure you can counter their nukes beforehand.
