Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

AlphaRed · 29-04-2015 12:43PM #1

Some people say they keep the peace

Some people say one day they will kill us all

I understand Europe was a vicious place up until the invention of Nuclear weapons. Constant wars over hundreds of years, but now because we have Nuclear weapons we have to keep the peace and now as we all know we get along well with our European neighbours. They say it was Nuclear weapons that brought WW2 to an early end and even though it was devastating for Japan in the long run it saved many more lives. Nukes keep the peace.

On the other hand Nukes have the potential to wipe out the human race. Yes we always fought each other but we never had the potential to end it all with the push of a button. Nuclear weapons have created an arms race. Despite having nuclear weapons America seems intent on taking over the world and taking on Russia. They are focused on creating a missile defense shield to neutralize the Russians nuclear capabilities, maybe in the end nukes will not keep the peace but destroy us all.

catallus · 29-04-2015 12:49PM

Nukes are very bad things.

Boom_Bap · 29-04-2015 12:52PM

Nuke the whales.

iDave · 29-04-2015 12:53PM

Very ineffective in Independence Day.

Duggy747 · 29-04-2015 12:54PM

When Skynet becomes self-aware then we'll be truly fúcked.

iwillhtfu · 29-04-2015 12:58PM

I notice Islamic State missed the memo maybe one of our neighbours with nuclear weapons could remind them.

Reoil · 29-04-2015 12:58PM

How the **** could they be good?

ScumLord · 29-04-2015 01:04PM

The global economy has probably done as much to maintain peace as anything else. We have Europe and Russia trading with each other despite the fact we're completely at odds and neither one wants to upset the balance because both have become pretty dependant on the money and resources they get from trading with each other.

We're too invested in each other and global trade, there isn't really any self sufficient country left in the world. If we want to keep our modern technologically advanced lifestyles we can't go to war anymore.

Harry Palmr · 29-04-2015 01:05PM

Good until they go off. A lot to be said for mutually assured destruction.

seamus · 29-04-2015 01:10PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Some people say they keep the peace

What peace?

Europe is at peace, not because of nuclear weapons but because nobody wants to be at war.

There are still wars all over the world, involving countries who have nuclear weapons.

The bluff has been called, nobody will use nuclear weapons except if they're on the verge of losing a war on their own landmass.

At best it could be argued that nuclear weapons protects countries from invasion - but only if that country is already in possession of nuclear weapons.

If you're not, then you're **** out of luck and nuclear weapons do not protect you.

Calibos · 29-04-2015 01:12PM

Nukes are Good m'Kay!

Generic Dreadhead · 29-04-2015 01:14PM

They're great, some pretty decent ones on Done Deal if you know how to shop around, lot's of time wasters too though offering Anthrax instead

Skylinehead · 29-04-2015 01:14PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Nuke the whales.

Gotta nuke something...

Honestly, I'm not sure. Has the threat of nuclear war stopped large-scale conventional warfare? It's quite possible, although as mentioned it may well be economics that are causing that instead. Before World War 1/2 large-scale conflict in Europe was the norm, with France/Prussia/Britain/Austria/Russia at each others throats almost all of the time. But then there's the argument that European cooperation through the EU has put a stop to that instead.

Nucular Arms · 29-04-2015 01:15PM

Nucular Arms is the best.

RobertKK · 29-04-2015 01:16PM

Some historians argue there was no need for the destruction of life with the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki, as Japan had already decided to surrender and the Americans knew this.

They were not designed for good, they were designed to kill and cause fear.

anncoates · 29-04-2015 01:16PM

You know where you stood when it was just binary, antipodal, cartoon ideologies threatening each other with nukes.

All this dour, religiously-motivated nuclear stockpiling with no decent cultural tropes has just ruined all the fun.

Maximus Alexander · 29-04-2015 01:16PM

It's bad that they ever existed, but now that they exist, it's good to keep them around.

Elessar · 29-04-2015 01:17PM

Nukes don't keep the peace in Europe, the EU project does (that and 2 vicious world wars). Thanks to the EU we're all closer than ever, barriers have been taken down (figuratively).

29-04-2015 01:23PM

With nuclear weapons already in existence the best thing to do is reduce the stockpiles to a minimum to keep the status quo between nuclear powers, no nation is going to fully give up all of their nuclear weapons trusting others would genuinely do the same.

The extremes the Soviets and Americans went to is frighting. The destructive power of just one SS-18 Satan missile was up to 500 times greater than that of the atomic bombs America used against Japan in 1945. Armed with ten nuclear warheads and with a range of up to almost 10,000 miles, experts say it is the deadliest and the heaviest ballistic missile in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njhI5HSO9VU

Skylinehead · 29-04-2015 01:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Some historians argue there was no need for the destruction of life with the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki, as Japan had already decided to surrender and the Americans knew this.

Almost certainly untrue - the Japanese were fanatic in believing in the fight to the death. Look at Okinawa as an example, and you're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths on the American side alone, without even talking about civilians.

Irish Guitarist · 29-04-2015 01:29PM

I saw a documentary about Hiroshima a few years ago. When the bomb went off there was a man sitting on a wall. His 'shadow' is now permanently burned into the ground.

For some reason I thought that was the saddest part of the documentary. Just some ordinary man sitting on a wall minding his own business and then suddenly he's burned into the landscape forever.

catallus · 29-04-2015 01:35PM

Didn't Japan surrender the day after the Soviets declared war on them?

Corvo · 29-04-2015 01:39PM

We'll need em with the way the Russian's are going about their business

BoJack Horseman · 29-04-2015 01:45PM

I got an old one, but it didn't work.

I could have picked up a new one however I just couldn't resist that 50's retro charm.

(In general I'm ambivalent.
MAD has its uses).

Akrasia · 29-04-2015 01:53PM

There are only two scenarios when nukes are good
1. when we need to commit intergalactic genocide on the alien xenomorphs (nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure)
2. if we need to nudge a planet killing astroid off it's orbit so that it misses us and hits the xenomorphs planet instead.

god I hate those xenomorphs

I know they're not actually called xenomorphs in the movie

JupiterKid · 29-04-2015 02:42PM

They are monstrously destructive but that aspect has meant since Nagasaki no-one has used them. So in a way the help to keep the peace. As a child I was absolutely terrified of them and what they could do.

Calibos · 29-04-2015 03:20PM

No one ever said the MAD principle would stop Wars between non Nuclear powers or between Nuclear and Non Nuclear powers or Proxy Wars between Nuclear Powers. It was only ever about preventing WW3, ie. massive large scale conventional wars with 10's of millions of deaths and casualties between major powers.

astrofool · 29-04-2015 04:00PM

catallus wrote: »

Didn't Japan surrender the day after the Soviets declared war on them?

Even after Hiroshima the Japanese tried to work out how often the USA could manufacture and use such a bomb, and figured they could still fight on while taking a nuke every 4-6 weeks, the casualties from the bomb were not that great compared to what they were losing while fighting anyway. The entire nation was prepared for self-immolation rather than surrender.

The "surrender" they offered would have left them in control of large parts of Asia and left the current regime in charge.

Theboinkmaster · 29-04-2015 04:46PM

Nuclear weapons - like two lads standing waste deep is gasoline. One has 3 matches, the other has 4 :pac:

Junkyard Tom · 29-04-2015 04:54PM

The first alien says, "The dominant life forms on the earth planet have developed satellite-based nuclear weapons." The second alien, who looks exactly like the first, asks, "Are they an emerging intelligence?" The first alien says, "I don't think so, they have them aimed at themselves."

FrostyJack · 29-04-2015 05:08PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Almost certainly untrue - the Japanese were fanatic in believing in the fight to the death. Look at Okinawa as an example, and you're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths on the American side alone, without even talking about civilians.

When Russia approached their borders the Japanese surrendered. There were more people killed with the fire bombing of the cities in a single night, than in the 2 atomic bombs separately.

Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad? 48 votes

Comments