We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Why iran must not have nukes?
| 204 | 20875 |
- 204 Replies
America dropping atomic bombs on Japan is one of the biggest human crimes ever commited, yet people act like it was needed!
Can you actually think before you write? America was the sole country to have nukes in 1945, therefore there was no deterrence, therefore no fear of using them.
There is no deterrent. Its like having guns. Guns do not deter killing. I live in UK. We have no guns. WE DONT GO AROUND KILLING WITH NO FEAR OF RETALLIATION!
Nukes are crazy and no-one should have them.
That's because you do not even have guns to begin with. Also, you can't enlarge the micro subject of guns to nukes which affect international relations. It is not a valid comparison because the fallout from shooting a person just can't fit into the scale of a potential nuclear winter.
Can you actually think before you write?
Dont insult me please.
America was the sole country to have nukes in 1945, therefore there was no deterrence, therefore no fear of using them.
So if Iran has no nukes, we dont fear using them? That sounds horrible to me.
It is not a valid comparison because the fallout from shooting a person just can't fit into the scale of a potential nuclear winter.
True, but then humans are human, no matter the scale.
Dont insult me please.
Then make valid points. I might have gone overboard, sorry, but it irks me to come on and people have little clue of what they are debating on.
So if Iran has no nukes, we dont fear using them? That sounds horrible to me.
Have you actually considered why we might actually want to use nukes on them? The drawbacks, such as a massive international lashback and much more instability in the region would be extreme.
And no, nuclear deterrence is more relevant to the nuclear powers themselves.
True, but then humans are human, no matter the scale.
And....so? Your point being? I see no logical flow between your two points. If you meant that human nature is rash and impulsive and hence will lead to the firing of a nuke then no. Firing a nuke takes a lot of clearance from the top, going down command chains and decision making processes before a launch. A trigger on the other hand can be pulled ever so easily.
I sincerely think no one should have Nukes, it's a deadly weapon, it brings nothing good to this world, and if anyone with a nuclear warhead fires, it's gonna be the end of pretty much everything we know as it is, remember Chernobyl? (Yes, I know it wasn't nuked, but the consequences will be the same, probably worse)
I sincerely think no one should have Nukes, it's a deadly weapon, it brings nothing good to this world, and if anyone with a nuclear warhead fires, it's gonna be the end of pretty much everything we know as it is, remember Chernobyl? (Yes, I know it wasn't nuked, but the consequences will be the same, probably worse)
It will be worse. Personally I think nukes should be wiped out; but nuclear energy championed.
Then make valid points. I might have gone overboard, sorry, but it irks me to come on and people have little clue of what they are debating on.
I am, you just dont agree with me, which is not the same as me "having no clue".
Firing a nuke takes a lot of clearance from the top, going down command chains and decision making processes before a launch. A trigger on the other hand can be pulled ever so easily.
For a start, its not so easy to get a gun. You are also traceable.
So... What if someone DOES fire a nuke? And if one was fired in retalliation? Would you be happy in the knowledge that the civillian population in both countries would die? Hiroshima and Nagasaki came from top level clearance. What makes you think these decisions wont be made again? Do you really value the honour of our rulers that much. Do you believe our best interests are at the heart of their decision making?
I am, you just dont agree with me, which is not the same as me "having no clue".
Eg:
America dropping atomic bombs on Japan is one of the biggest human crimes ever commited, yet people act like it was needed!
Valid as an anti-nuke point but not valid as a point against the deterrence argument. Capiche?
For a start, its not so easy to get a gun. You are also traceable.
I was assuming we were talking about gun rights in the States. Yes it is traceable so? It does not take clearance or various levels of decision making to pull a trigger. Think about it; How many gun-related crimes are committed a year? Now, think about the number of nukes launched. Case in point, the gun example simply does not become a good analogy here.
So... What if someone DOES fire a nuke? And if one was fired in retalliation? Would you be happy in the knowledge that the civillian population in both countries would die? Hiroshima and Nagasaki came from top level clearance. What makes you think these decisions wont be made again? Do you really value the honour of our rulers that much. Do you believe our best interests are at the heart of their decision making?
Yes to the questions where it applies. For half a century our rulers have proven prudent enough not to launch a nuke. I think that actually counts as substantial proof.
Would you be happy in the knowledge that the civillian population in both countries would die?
Of course not; and I am virulently anti-nuke. Your question however has no implications on the question of the strength of nuclear deterrence.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki came from top level clearance.
Have you read my previous post? America at that time and for the next four years had the only nukes in the world. When the Soviets got hold of them, the picture changed altogether.
Eg:
America dropping atomic bombs on Japan is one of the biggest human crimes ever commited, yet people act like it was needed!
Valid as an anti-nuke point but not valid as a point against the deterrence argument. Capiche?
Well America thought it was needed and for them it was faster then clearing all the small isles in the Sea which belong to Japan and then start to destroy the whole japanese mainland. It isn't better and they shouldn't have used a nuke but a less, non-nuclear bomb.
Well America thought it was needed and for them it was faster then clearing all the small isles in the Sea which belong to Japan and then start to destroy the whole japanese mainland. It isn't better and they shouldn't have used a nuke but a less, non-nuclear bomb.
Now tell me, how would they get a ''less, non-nuclear bomb'' that would have the same effect? Think about US military capabilities back then and reconsider your point.
Oh, another reason they dropped the bombs was as a warning to the Soviets. Just being a pedant.
Well America thought it was needed and for them it was faster then clearing all the small isles in the Sea which belong to Japan and then start to destroy the whole japanese mainland. It isn't better and they shouldn't have used a nuke but a less, non-nuclear bomb.
So what would they use instead of a nuclear warhead to influence fear in both the Japanese and The USSR? And not only them, but the entire world aswell. Perhaps Neutron bombs? (For the ones with lack of knowledge) Sure, that would cause no damage to infrastructure, but casualties would be higher. Nothing influences fear like a weapon that can devastate a entire city.
And not only them, but the entire world aswell. Perhaps Neutron bombs? (For the ones with lack of knowledge) Sure, that would cause no damage to infrastructure, but casualties would be higher. Nothing influences fear like a weapon that can devastate a entire city.
Sigh. Not again, why can't you guys actually read up on actual facts first? It might be sarcasm, but a discussion with skewed knowledge does not make for a fruitful debate.
In this case, neutron bombs did not exist in 1945. Just saying.
The alternative in 1945 would be to fight on, bear in mind that Japan still had around 3 million fanatical soldiers left. It's a cold blooded decision to base on human lives, but it was the lesser of two evils.
In this case, neutron bombs did not exist in 1945. Just saying
Ah, I apologize then, I didn't know that :\\
The alternative in 1945 would be to fight on, bear in mind that Japan still had around 3 million fanatical soldiers left. It's a cold blooded decision to base on human lives, but it was the lesser of two evils.
To fight on would lead the US into losing too many soldiers, exactly the reason why they nuked it twice.
Oh, just a note, but you guys are getting off topic, it's about Iran not having nukes, not why the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki or not.
Also, Iran especially can't be trusted with nuclear warheads, considering the government and the leaders.
Ah, I apologize then, I didn't know that :\\\\
Haha it's alright, sorry for being a harsh pedant! :P
To fight on would lead the US into losing too many soldiers, exactly the reason why they nuked it twice.
Plus Japanese civilian casualties.
Oh, just a note, but you guys are getting off topic, it's about Iran not having nukes, not why the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki or not.
Also, Iran especially can't be trusted with nuclear warheads, considering the government and the leaders.
We diverged because some people wanted to point out the so called hypocrisy of the West and how the 1945 bombings somehow show that nuclear deterrence fails as a concept.
We diverged because some people wanted to point out the so called hypocrisy of the West and how the 1945 bombings somehow show that nuclear deterrence fails as a concept.
Because I dont think western countries can be trusted with nukes any more than Iran or any other eastern countries for that matter. The general opinion from the west is that if the middle east had nukes, we would all be dead, because they are all religious fanatics and terrorists.
It fails as a concept because how is it a deterrent if the "nutters" like ahamajellybad has nukes and would use them cos he hates the west then how is the west having nukes a deterrent.
Or if he does have nukes and we also have nukes, then isn't it equal and neither uses nukes because of the fear of retaliation. Or are all middle eastern people nuts and ready to die in a jihad against the christian west?
Are you saying Jellybad wouldnt care that his country would be bombed into oblivion?
If he doesnt have and is never allowed nukes, how are we dettered from another Nagasaki or Hiroshima? If all the countries with nukes agree that he has gone off the rails and starts a war, what stops us from bombing again with the terrible excuse that it will stop a war?
It's a cold blooded decision to base on human lives, but it was the lesser of two evils.
I have heard that parroted before, its not an argument that has any validity and we will never know if the opposite is true.
Your views are only one side of things, you cannot pass off my answers with arrogance and dismissive comments!
so called
somehow show
Sigh. Not again,
Its obvious from your tone (lol, internetz haz tonez) that you are facepalming and tired of hearing the opposite view. I respect you too much to allow you to get away with this :P
I feel passionately about this. Nukes are bad news. You know this to be true. Why then do you act as if its a deterrent? What evidence do you have that this is the actual case. I dont want wiki articles or western media saying this is the case, because this is obviously bias and skewed wildly towards whatever the "man" has interests in.
a discussion with skewed knowledge does not make for a fruitful debate.
Well said.
You must be logged in to post a reply!