Page 1 of 2
#1
Just wonder what you guys think about nukes.
should they be used regularly in war?
Should they have never been created?
Is there a situation when we should use them?
pretty much anything you want to say about nukes.

I'm writting a paper on them for english so I need points to argue for/against.
#2
Quote by Stir-Fry
Should they be used regularly in war?

No.
Quote by Stir-Fry
Should they have never been created?

Somebody would have discovered/created them eventually, either on purpose or by accident:
Nuclear power plant = CONTROLLED nuclear breakdown
Nuclear bomb = UNCONTROLLED nuclear breakdown
Quote by Stir-Fry
Is there a situation when we should use them?

No.
Last edited by ZeGuitarist at Nov 28, 2008,
#3
Quote by ZeGuitarist
No.

Somebody would have created them eventually:
Nuclear power plant = CONTROLLED nuclear breakdown
Nuclear bomb = UNCONTROLLED nuclear breakdown

No.


+ mutha fuckin' 1
Sig space for rent.
$100 obo
Message for negotiaton.
#4
I continually wait in silent preparation for the day that Fallout becomes IRL. Save those bottle caps!
Is it a bad thing if one of your testicles is larger then the other two?
#5
I think they're iffy. If we use them, we're going to get bombarded with them as well. So its a lose/lose
Quote by MeltingWaxFace
Afterwards I said to her "Why did you blitz my asshole like that?"


#6
I suppose if the entire world wanted to commit suicide, at the exact same time, nukes would be an appropriate item to use.

other than that, I really don't see why they should be ever used.
Quote by nebraskan
Sometimes my penis stands up so I rub it and then he gets sick from the rubbing (probably an upset tummy) and throws up ... ...
Quote by metaldud536
Im 18 and ive never had a wet dream. is that normal?
Quote by Våd Hamster
I used to think that girls only had 2 holes

^sex?
#8
No, definitely not.

If you can watch or look up a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain"

It shows some survivors from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, and that **** is pretty devastating. I think it should be used in only extreme cases.


myspace.com/weasheroesband
#10
ever see the pics of the devistation in japan after the bombs were dropped?a lot of innocent people died from them. lingering, painful deaths. nuclear fallout traveled throughout the world contaminating everything in it's path. i take it the you've never seen the old footage of the a bomb tests in nevada?
hell no, i won't glow. your choice, my opinion.
All my guitars are old enough to buy beer, are You?
#11
Quote by ZeGuitarist
No.

Somebody would have created them eventually:
Nuclear power plant = CONTROLLED nuclear breakdown
Nuclear bomb = UNCONTROLLED nuclear breakdown

No.


/thread.

There is no use for nuclear arms on this planet.
#13
I, for one, am quite glad that we discovered nuclear weapons when we did.

Imagine if we had discovered them in modern times! WW3 would be happening as we speak! At least now we have history and shame to teach us all not to use said weapons on eachother. These weapons have existed for over half a century -- and havn't been used since. They are considered the lowest slimiest way of attack -- more so even than biological or chemical warfare. The cultural stygma that has become attached will help prevent said use in the world.

Furthermore -- study and research into that field is yielding tons of information from practical issues such as power generation (Imagine how the economy would change with cold fusion) to metaphysical concepts such as the generation and makeup of the universe.

So yes -- it's a damn good thing we discovered how to split the atom when we did.

Furthermore -- Ive seen Armageddon. You never know when something really REALLY needs to be blown up!
"Is that the fucking bible?"

"That's Holy Fucking Bible to you"
#14
Quote by Avedas
/thread.

There is no use for nuclear arms on this planet.


+an infinite number of tacos.

Damn, that was going to be a number but I'm really hungry...

Seriously, there's a damn good reason J. Robert Oppenheimer said "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.".
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#15
Quote by ZeGuitarist

Nuclear power plant = CONTROLLED nuclear breakdown

yeah tell that to chernoble
Quote by Sonicxlover
I once told a Metallica fan I liked Megadeth, and he stabbed me 42 times.
#16
I am ok with them. The problem comes in when someone uses them, then someone else will fire some in response. I think they are very effective at ending wars if your opponent doesn't have any nuclear weapons to fire back at you.
#17
Quote by gun4hire
yeah tell that to chernoble


First, it's Tsjernobyl.

Second, that's what happens if you allow a controlled nuclear reaction get out of control. Like I said in my first post, somebody would have discovered nuclear weapons anyway, either on purpose or by accident.
#18
Quote by gun4hire
yeah tell that to chernoble

Chernobyl was caused by the scientists and technicians there testing to see how far they could push the reactor to make more power, and the effects at higher levels. They pushed it too far.

It wasn't entirely an accident.
..is a girl
Quote by RPGoof
WAT
How about just send a ship at the speed up light directly to the sun, and the gravity will pull it towards the sun, thus speeding it over the speed of light.

#19
Quote by Stir-Fry
Just wonder what you guys think about nukes.
should they be used regularly in war?
Should they have never been created?
Is there a situation when we should use them?
pretty much anything you want to say about nukes.

I'm writting a paper on them for english so I need points to argue for/against.

"should they be used regularly in war"???? is that even a question?

hell no they shouldnt. nukes obviously cause countless deaths. however the most deaths can be caused by the wanton destruction of infrastructure that a country depends on to feed its people and to function.

look up a concept called MAD, meaning Mutually Assured Destruction. it basically means if someone launches nukes today, retaliation would result in the destruction of the world.

im still on the fence on whether or not we shouldve used them in world war two.
was it a legitimate way to end the war? or a pompous show-off to the russians?
#20
No nukes should not be allowed in war.
U.G should be allowed to control one nuke though.There would be a thread created on it in the pit.lulz would ensue and the thread would eventually get closed.
But seriously.
With nuclear power everyone goes on about the whole zero carbon emissions.
WHAT ABOUT the carbon emissions made from the building and safe dis-arming of the plant?
The emissions of digging up the uranium and shipping it to the plant?
Besides we would end up in a worse situation than our current coal reliance.We would run out of uranium and we would have a whole load of toxic waste...
Seagulls,the chicken of the ocean.

Originally posted by Gunpowder:
Everyone just jumps on the bandwagon and gives the same advice in these situations. You know what? I'm going to be different. Call the firemen.
#21
Quote by in2thesun88
I am ok with them. The problem comes in when someone uses them, then someone else will fire some in response. I think they are very effective at ending wars if your opponent doesn't have any nuclear weapons to fire back at you.


Do you think any officer/general/whatever would willingly fire the nuke at an enemy country knowing its power, even if they couldn't fire back. I think that might be an important point now, that most people see at as an "slimey" weapon like Imp said and they probably dont enjoy killing masses of innocent people. Even if it might end the war faster?
#22
Quote by Stir-Fry
Do you think any officer/general/whatever would willingly fire the nuke at an enemy country knowing its power, even if they couldn't fire back. I think that might be an important point now, that most people see at as an "slimey" weapon like Imp said and they probably dont enjoy killing masses of innocent people. Even if it might end the war faster?


No human being should ever willingly go to war in the first place, the very concept of having a last resort to end a war no questions asked shows just exactly what it wrong with mankind.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#23
Quote by in2thesun88
I am ok with them. The problem comes in when someone uses them, then someone else will fire some in response. I think they are very effective at ending wars if your opponent doesn't have any nuclear weapons to fire back at you.

No, the problem comes in the massive civilian murder that you inflict followed by the generations of people with horrific genetic deformities.
Well for people with even the smallest amount of human decency it does anyway.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#24
Quote by Stir-Fry
Do you think any officer/general/whatever would willingly fire the nuke at an enemy country knowing its power, even if they couldn't fire back. I think that might be an important point now, that most people see at as an "slimey" weapon like Imp said and they probably dont enjoy killing masses of innocent people. Even if it might end the war faster?

I am a follower of General Sherman when it comes to my views on war. I believe in total warfare. You enemy doesn't follow rules and you shouldn't either. There should be no rules in war. He said (and I am summarizing) that if there is a civilian, woman, or child who makes a blanket, makes a meal, or does even the slightest thing for the enemy then they too are the enemy. He was ruthless on his march to the sea to end the civil war. I am a believer in do whatever it takes at any cost to win a war. Now, with that said, there is no way we will ever do anything like General Sherman warfare ever again.
#25
Quote by in2thesun88
I am a follower of General Sherman when it comes to my views on war. I believe in total warfare. You enemy doesn't follow rules and you shouldn't either. There should be no rules in war. He said (and I am summarizing) that if there is a civilian, woman, or child who makes a blanket, makes a meal, or does even the slightest thing for the enemy then they too are the enemy. He was ruthless on his march to the sea to end the civil war. I am a believer in do whatever it takes at any cost to win a war. Now, with that said, there is no way we will ever do anything like General Sherman warfare ever again.


People who are not soldiers should be left well out of the war in my opinion, there's a good reason they're called non-combatants. For the record Sherman also said this:

Quote by General Sherman
I am sick and tired of war. It's glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.


War is, in itself, an atrocity that should never be considered by an rational human being.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#26
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
People who are not soldiers should be left well out of the war in my opinion, there's a good reason they're called non-combatants. For the record Sherman also said this:


War is, in itself, an atrocity that should never be considered by an rational human being.

I never said war was good or that it is a good thing to kill everyone in sight, but if you go to war, you have to go 100% not this question first and ask your superior if you should shoot or not warfare. I think that in war you should use any and all resources at your defense.

Well, humans have been fighting since the dawn of time. War is ingrained in human history. You are naive to think that a day will come when we wont have war. World Peace is a pipe dream as long as we have people like the Iranian president Ahmadinijad, like the North Korean leader Kim Jong-ll. There are people who only understand things from a militant perspective.
#27
Quote by The Leader
I continually wait in silent preparation for the day that Fallout becomes IRL. Save those bottle caps!


I used to collect them as a kid, must've had at least a thousand caps.

I could've bought a minigun with those
#28
Quote by in2thesun88
I never said war was good or that it is a good thing to kill everyone in sight, but if you go to war, you have to go 100% not this question first and ask your superior if you should shoot or not warfare. I think that in war you should use any and all resources at your defense.

Well, humans have been fighting since the dawn of time. War is ingrained in human history. You are naive to think that a day will come when we wont have war. World Peace is a pipe dream as long as we have people like the Iranian president Ahmadinijad, like the North Korean leader Kim Jong-ll. There are people who only understand things from a militant perspective.


I understand that war musy be fought on all fronts and using all the resources you have is just good tactics but I still stand by not invloving anyone who isn't a fighter. There are much better ways to vut off the supply and support chain to your enemies. 'At any cost' is too high a price to pay IMHO.

I also never said that I thought war would ever end; I am well aware of the fact that in the entire recorded history of humanity there have been no days without at least one war somewhere but that doesn't change my belief that it is unneccesary and that to fight a war is inherently wrong.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#30
I worked with a tactical nuke when I was in the Army, the Lance Missile:

That system was quickly removed from European soil when "The Wall" came down in Germany. I wish all nukes could be destroyed, but that's not feasible.
#31
Quote by ChrisN
Nucular... it's pronounced nucular.

Actually it's not.
#32
Quote by Stir-Fry
Actually it's not.


Actually you just missed the joke/reference.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#35
I reckon they should be treated like tasers. If you want to use one you have to have it used on you first.
#36
Quote by Kaed15
Chernobyl was caused by the scientists and technicians there testing to see how far they could push the reactor to make more power, and the effects at higher levels. They pushed it too far.

It wasn't entirely an accident.


No it was entirely an accident. They were testing a new safety system, for if the power went out.

Gear:
Ibanez JPM P100A
Schecter C7 Loomis
Ibanez Rg1570
Agile Intrepid 828 Pro Dual
Schecter Omen FR Extreme
Ibanez RG550 (Fernandez Sustainer)
Laney World Series 120-TR
POD X3 Live
#37
Quote by beyondthegrave
f.u.ck nuclear weapons!! i think we should still have to fight wars with sword , axes . spears and ****.


Yeah mate, war would be much better if we just hurled hot poo at each other.
VENUSIAN
FB SC BC TW
Patterns In The Ivy present ethnicity on an intriguing and dedicated level. ~Ambient Exotica
A mesmeric melange of yearning voice, delicate piano and carefully chosen samples. ~Lost Voices
#38
Quote by ZeGuitarist
+Pi


+e

Quote by rabidguitarist
Yeah mate, war would be much better if we just hurled hot poo at each other.


Admit it, you'd secretly enjoy that, though
#39
Quote by Stir-Fry
Do you think any officer/general/whatever would willingly fire the nuke at an enemy country knowing its power, even if they couldn't fire back. I think that might be an important point now, that most people see at as an "slimey" weapon like Imp said and they probably dont enjoy killing masses of innocent people. Even if it might end the war faster?


Dr Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
PLAY UP POMPEY

POMPEY PLAY UP!

#40
Quote by n2dabloo
I worked with a tactical nuke when I was in the Army, the Lance Missile:

That system was quickly removed from European soil when "The Wall" came down in Germany. I wish all nukes could be destroyed, but that's not feasible.


Wouldn't those guys in the truck get a headache when that things goes off?

On topic, I believe that nukes have stopped World War III. The fact is, no-one has yet felt that going into a major conflict is worth it, because of the fact the enemy will drop a nuclear bomb on your head. For this reason, the nuclear bomb has actually saved millions of lives. Japan wouldn't have surrendered, and there would almost certainly have been a war between the USSR and the west.

The problem, however, is that inevitably one day another Hitler will get into power somewhere. And they will think that using the bomb is worth it. Then the world will probably end.

We are facing a situation similar to the one after World War One: we all want peace, and know that to achieve this we should disarm. However, no-one wants to do it first. I think Nuclear weapons are a bugbear we will all have to live with.

And in answer to the question of should we have them, I think that at present they have saved lots of lives, which is positive. However, they have the potential to wipe out life on earth. So I don't know.
Page 1 of 2