Can we morally defend the existence of Nuclear Bombs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. They should be banned and any nation which has them should be isolated from the rest of the world
 
tonyrey said:
No. They should be banned and any nation which has them should be isolated from the rest of the world
Click to expand...
For the sake of the thread, can you go in to more explanation as to why nuclear Bombs ought to be banned.
 
I think we could. I would much rather they were never created in the first place, but we can’t do anything about that now.

Were some sort of agreement reached between every nation with nuclear arms to dispose of them all, I wouldn’t trust any to follow through with it. Even if most did, some nation would keep theirs, then use them to try and hold the rest of the world hostage. Unless it somehow becomes possible to render all nukes inert, for now, we have to learn to live with the looming threat of nuclear annihilation.

Which sounds bad, but so far, no one has been dumb enough to try and kick it off, knock on wood. The presence of nuclear weapons and the threat they present seems to keep everyone from going too crazy.
 
Personally, I think that Nukes are unnecessarily powerful and destructive. Normal bombs blow up a specific area and cause damage but nuclear bombs leave that area uninhabitable for decades. Warfare should never about hurting civilians. You can argue that civilian deaths in war are unavoidable however we should put our utmost effort in to avoid it. Nuclear bombs do not decide who they will kill, innocent or guilty, all will die. The animals and the trees, they’ll die too. For what? Aren’t we suppose to love our neighbor? that was one of the most important commandments: love God and love neighbor.
From “Uranium: Twisting The Dragon’s Tail” | Chuck Penson from the Titan Missile Museum.
" The idea behind Titan 2 was to instill enough fear into the mind of the enemy to cause them to think twice about launching an attack against us (U.S.) knowing that ten meters below a desert in a fortified concrete bunker, we can ride out their first strike and live to retaliate… the consequences for the enemy would be so unspeakably horrible that maybe they would have preferred not to get to us in the first place. That’s the essence for deterrence".
Now, nuclear bombs are only there to prove that one is stronger than other. North Korea is doing the same thing with their uranium enriching program. But instead of just a certificate that says “you are number 1”, the nuclear bombs can end all life on earth.
In my opinion, we cannot morally defend the existence of Nuclear Bombs, we just don’t need such incredible power in our deck and this world does not need worse to kill more of God’s children.
 
As americans, we let the cat out of the bag. We now have the moral obligation to prevent them from being used by anyone else. If that means we have a large arsenal, and a very formidable response to nuclear agression, then we must do so. Until someone can provide a 100 % gaurantee no one will build and use any more nukes, then they must exist.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s what we are stuck with for the forseeable future.
 
Dang_Nguyen said:
Personally, I think that Nukes are unnecessarily powerful and destructive. Normal bombs blow up a specific area and cause damage but nuclear bombs leave that area uninhabitable for decades. Warfare should never about hurting civilians. You can argue that civilian deaths in war are unavoidable however we should put our utmost effort in to avoid it. Nuclear bombs do not decide who they will kill, innocent or guilty, all will die. The animals and the trees, they’ll die too. For what? Aren’t we suppose to love our neighbor? that was one of the most important commandments: love God and love neighbor.
From “Uranium: Twisting The Dragon’s Tail” | Chuck Penson from the Titan Missile Museum.
" The idea behind Titan 2 was to instill enough fear into the mind of the enemy to cause them to think twice about launching an attack against us (U.S.) knowing that ten meters below a desert in a fortified concrete bunker, we can ride out their first strike and live to retaliate… the consequences for the enemy would be so unspeakably horrible that maybe they would have preferred not to get to us in the first place. That’s the essence for deterrence".
Now, nuclear bombs are only there to prove that one is stronger than other. North Korea is doing the same thing with their uranium enriching program. But instead of just a certificate that says “you are number 1”, the nuclear bombs can end all life on earth.
In my opinion, we cannot morally defend the existence of Nuclear Bombs, we just don’t need such incredible power in our deck and this world does not need worse to kill more of God’s children.
Click to expand...
Its very scary. North Korea, if we believe the horror stories of how crazy the leader is, might use a nuclear bomb. Can human beings even survive a nuclear war?

I appreciate your argument and i think i agree. But what does one say to those who would argue that the existence of nuclear arms is inevitable and therefore america has a moral duty to bare nuclear arms?
 
As recently as 1994, two tribes in Africa ended up with an estimated half a million to a million dead using hand-held weapons. As technology advances, the various types of nuclear weapons are becoming less and less practical to use. Wars are fought over land and resources, not turning it all into a radioactive wasteland, much less upsetting other countries with all that nuclear fallout going their way. Already a combination of weapon systems exist that will turn manned warfare into less men required. Remotely operated weapons platforms of various sizes and types will overwhelm even sophisticated defenses, and precision-guided/human-guided platforms will only blow up what needs to be blown up, with minimal civilian deaths.

So, there is no moral defense for nuclear bombs, but there will continue to be wars on various scales. As I watched an old movie, three men sat around a table. One said. “There’s no money in peace.” And while peace is desirable - that is the rationale.

Ed
 
IWantGod said:
Can we morally defend the existence of Nuclear Bombs?

youtube.com/watch?v=P2eqNB6zy9k

Nuclear weapons… new Documentary BBC 2017

youtube.com/watch?v=hrvgsk8eX24
Click to expand...
To me, this is a VERY complicated issue. Especially, since nuclear bombs provide zero tactical advantage in war.

The reason the US created the first nuclear bomb is because we received information that Nazi Germany was in the process of attempting to create one. So the morality of whether we should have created it or not can be debated.

However, the decision to drop two nukes on Japan was (in my opinion) was immoral (esp dropping the 2nd one). Apparently, there is an argument that Japan would never surrender and that dropping the first nuke actually saved lives. I’m not sure what the truth is. However, dropping the 2nd one was simply to prove that the first nuke we dropped on Japan wasn’t the last one. The dropping of the 2nd one, was totally immoral.

As far as their continued existence, nuclear weapons today are (for the most part) exist in order to prevent rogue statue (like North Korea) to think twice about using a nuke.

If all nations eliminated nukes after the end of the cold war (or never developed them) some made man (like in North Korea) would have eventually developed them and potentially used with without fear.

The continued existence of Nuclear weapons reminds the rogue nations to think twice about doing something stupid (like launching a nuke). And I don’t buy the argument that “North Korea & Iran wouldn’t be developing nukes if no one else had them.” If no nation currectly had nukes North Korea and Iran would still be building them.
 
phil19034 said:
To me, this is a VERY complicated issue. Especially, since nuclear bombs provide zero tactical advantage in war.

The reason the US created the first nuclear bomb is because we received information that Nazi Germany was in the process of attempting to create one. So the morality of whether we should have created it or not can be debated.

However, the decision to drop two nukes on Japan was (in my opinion) was immoral (esp dropping the 2nd one). Apparently, there is an argument that Japan would never surrender and that dropping the first nuke actually saved lives. I’m not sure what the truth is. However, dropping the 2nd one was simply to prove that the first nuke we dropped on Japan wasn’t the last one. The dropping of the 2nd one, was totally immoral.

As far as their continued existence, nuclear weapons today are (for the most part) exist in order to prevent rogue statue (like North Korea) to think twice about using a nuke.

If all nations eliminated nukes after the end of the cold war (or never developed them) some made man (like in North Korea) would have eventually developed them and potentially used with without fear.

The continued existence of Nuclear weapons reminds the rogue nations to think twice about doing something stupid (like launching a nuke). And I don’t buy the argument that “North Korea & Iran wouldn’t be developing nukes if no one else had them.” If no nation currectly had nukes North Korea and Iran would still be building them.
Click to expand...
How do we know that a rogue state like North Korea won’t drop a nuke anyway. If these countries are really that immoral it doesn’t really matter if we have nukes or not.
 
IWantGod said:
How do we know that a rogue state like North Korea won’t drop a nuke anyway. If these countries are really that immoral it doesn’t really matter if we have nukes or not.
Click to expand...
The leaders of NK like being alive and enjoying the fruits of their regime. They understand that using a nuke ends them and what they care about.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
The leaders of NK like being alive and enjoying the fruits of their regime. They understand that using a nuke ends them and what they care about.
Click to expand...
That’s what we would hope
Can we really be so sure that self interest will prevent a nuclear war?

The other problem is, a country might decide to drop a nuclear bomb on north Korea just because they are a nuclear threat. Who would defend North Korea?
 
I also think that one day we will have a moral use for Nuclear Weapons in space. The protection of our planet from comets and killer asteroids.

On Friday, a 2.7 mile wide asteroid will pass us. On average, asteroids the size of football fields hit the earth every 2000 years and case massive damage. I don’t know about you, but we might be due for one of those soon.

And an asteroid the size of the one that is going to pass us on Friday would be an extinction level event. On average, they hit the earth every few million years… we are due for one of those too.

So one day, a nuke(s) MIGHT save our planet and the human race.

God created the universe. There must be something good this technology can be eventually good for (besides nuclear power, which has a major waste problem).

m.phys.org/news/2017-08-largest-asteroid-century-whiz-sept.html

God Bless
 
IWantGod said:
That’s what we would hope
Can we really be so sure that self interest will prevent a nuclear war?

The other problem is, a country might decide to drop a nuclear bomb on north Korea just because they are a nuclear threat. Who would defend North Korea?
Click to expand...
The members of the nuclear club all know that if anyone launches a nuke, they are done for. If someone launched a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea, they know North Korea would have time to launch one in return to one of their cities.

The only way North Korea would use a nuke is if they think we would respond with a MOAB instead of a nuke. While a MOAB would leave their cities in ruin, they could rebuild because of the lack of radiation. But a nuclear response assures North Korea that rebuilding isn’t possible for at least 100 years.

Today’s bombs have far more radiation than during world war 2

Honestly though, I’m not afraid of North Korea launching a nuke at us. What scares me more is them creating an EMP, which would distroy us.

Most Americans have no idea how to hunt and farm, and do all the things that people in the 1800s could do. If we lost electricity, it would set us back a thousand years, not simply back to the 19th century.
 
IWantGod said:
That’s what we would hope
Can we really be so sure that self interest will prevent a nuclear war?
Click to expand...
Excluding malfunctions and mistakes, I’d give it 90%. MAD only fails when it comes to fanatic religious fundamentalist such as ISIS and such.

Even if NK uses nukes it’d be unlikely that the US would due to fallout issues.
The other problem is, a country might decide to drop a nuclear bomb on north Korea just because they are a nuclear threat. Who would defend North Korea?
Click to expand...
A nuclear first strike makes no sense. By that logic India or Pakistan would have been bombed by now.

My real worry is not the guy with 15 or 15000 nukes, it’s the guy with 1.
 
Sad. Satellite technology is far more advanced than during the Cold War which I have studied in great detail. The guy with one would lose everything, but only if he tried something. Nuclear bombs give off radiation. This will not be hard to detect no matter where it is. I’ve seen degraded satellite photos. It’s good that people don’t know certain things on one hand, bad on the other. No one here has the capability to start or end anything.

So I’ll do what I did throughout the entire ICBM/Russian Bomber period of the Cold War. Go home and get a good night’s sleep.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top