When should a nation nuke another nation?

  • 77 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?MissRiotmaker

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

I think you're mixing realist with psychotic.

grow up and stay with the discussion...you cant keep believing that humans are flawless...
Avatar image for MFaraz_Hayat
MFaraz_Hayat

1794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 MFaraz_Hayat
Member since 2006 • 1794 Posts
[QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?Serial-No_3404

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

Avatar image for MissRiotmaker
MissRiotmaker

8593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#53 MissRiotmaker
Member since 2007 • 8593 Posts
[QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?Serial-No_3404

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

I think you're mixing realist with psychotic.

grow up and stay with the discussion...you cant keep believing that humans are flawless...

I think you're the one who needs to get with the program. Nobody is talking about human beings being flawless, you're starting to assume things because your edge is faltering. Nuclear warfare should never be justified. Whether you think it's a good thing by all means live in your crazy world. There are others who believe total annihilation isn't the answer. Ignored from here on out.
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?MFaraz_Hayat

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?MissRiotmaker

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

I think you're mixing realist with psychotic.

grow up and stay with the discussion...you cant keep believing that humans are flawless...

I think you're the one who needs to get with the program. Nobody is talking about human beings being flawless, you're starting to assume things because your edge is faltering. Nuclear warfare should never be justified. Whether you think it's a good thing by all means live in your crazy world. There are others who believe total annihilation isn't the answer. Ignored from here on out.

and my personal views are not being discussed here...stop insisting that i am psychotic just cause i dont agree with you...i have not attacked your beliefs like you have attacked mine...where the maturity in that...look at the overall view not just in your narrow mindset...other may believe that total warfare is logical...you said it yourself...contrary beliefs exist...you and i are examples
Avatar image for MissRiotmaker
MissRiotmaker

8593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#56 MissRiotmaker
Member since 2007 • 8593 Posts
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?Serial-No_3404

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

* facepalm * You sir are a certified failure. You accept the ideals of something that can control you yet you try to force your ideals on people you wish you could control.
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?MissRiotmaker

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

* facepalm * You sir are a certified failure. You accept the ideals of something that can control you yet you try to force your ideals on people you wish you could control.

i am not the one calling the opponent psychotic....you are the one insulting calling failure as though the debate has ended...i offered a different scenario...you fail to see that
Avatar image for MFaraz_Hayat
MFaraz_Hayat

1794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 MFaraz_Hayat
Member since 2006 • 1794 Posts
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?Serial-No_3404

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

At the time I would be in a concentration camp, I would ofcourse like the wrong-doing nation to be nuked (EMOTIONS). Later, however, I would realize, that the people who I wished to be nuked were innocent. It was the fault of the crappy rulers, not the people! IF someone should have been destroyed, it should have been the authorities not the civilians.

Avatar image for MissRiotmaker
MissRiotmaker

8593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#59 MissRiotmaker
Member since 2007 • 8593 Posts
[QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?Serial-No_3404

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

* facepalm * You sir are a certified failure. You accept the ideals of something that can control you yet you try to force your ideals on people you wish you could control.

i am not the one calling the opponent psychotic....you are the one insulting calling failure as though the debate has ended...i offered a different scenario...you fail to see that

There are noscenarios. This isn't a theoretical debate. This is a forum where the question is when a nation should feel the obligation to launch a nuclear attack on another. What you are doing is throwing out random situations and pitting people in a pick and choose battle. You can use all the past examples as much as you want, it doesn't answer the question and it doesn't justify your lack of an answer. Good day to you sir.
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?MFaraz_Hayat

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

At the time I would be in a concentration camp, I would ofcourse like the wrong-doing nation to be nuked (EMOTIONS). Later, however, I would realize, that the people who I wished to be nuked were innocent. It was the fault of the crappy rulers, not the people! IF someone should have been destroyed, it should have been the authorities not the civilians.

take out the personal emotions and see it as a way to end conflict that would undeniable continue for years and years quicker and with less casualties....if total war occured again what would the difference be if a nuke was detonated over london than london being bombed for another 15-25 years? the end would be total destruction both ways...radiation would remain for a while as well but the 500 thousand or so killed from the nuke and its aftermath would be certainly less than that of a war that continued for years and years
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?MissRiotmaker

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

* facepalm * You sir are a certified failure. You accept the ideals of something that can control you yet you try to force your ideals on people you wish you could control.

i am not the one calling the opponent psychotic....you are the one insulting calling failure as though the debate has ended...i offered a different scenario...you fail to see that

There are noscenarios. This isn't a theoretical debate. This is a forum where the question is when a nation should feel the obligation to launch a nuclear attack on another. What you are doing is throwing out random situations and pitting people in a pick and choose battle. You can use all the past examples as much as you want, it doesn't answer the question and it doesn't justify your lack of an answer. Good day to you sir.

i gave an answer..."when it is necessary"...you are the one that does not want to look outside of your personal emotions toward the subject...you fail at seeing the truth in the matter as you only see what you believe
Avatar image for Jinroh_basic
Jinroh_basic

6413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 Jinroh_basic
Member since 2002 • 6413 Posts

lol....Serial boy.....the fact that you apparently have no idea how devastating a nuclear bomb is even beyond its immediate blast goes to show that you're just here trying to get attention. you're just lousy, mate, hate to break it to ya, but that's just it.

Avatar image for MissRiotmaker
MissRiotmaker

8593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#63 MissRiotmaker
Member since 2007 • 8593 Posts
Continue living in this world of necessary. Necessary means nothing. GOODBYE.
Avatar image for MFaraz_Hayat
MFaraz_Hayat

1794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 MFaraz_Hayat
Member since 2006 • 1794 Posts
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"][QUOTE="-theCHUD-"]When should a nation nuke another one?Serial-No_3404

Never.

if the allies had a nuke at the start of WWII...would you have been ok with the nuke being used on nazi germany to force their surrender and prevent the holocaust and so forth?

Nuclear escalation is never the answer. It should never come to that. Understand what "never" means before you reply to my post next time.

sometimes the ends justify the means

But, would it be justified to save a nation by destroying another? The effects of a nuclear bomb, would adversely affect future generations as well. What crime did they commit?

So in retrospect, having one nation nuke another, and having another nuke the first nation in retaliation would be justified. That's some screwed up logic. That's like saying one man killing another man for killing another is justified.

do you understand what "the ends justify the means" at all?...ask if its worth it...is it worth getting nuked in return? if not then the ends does not justify...look at the context of the situation

Is it worth getting nuked? NOTHING is worth getting nuked. Are you insane?

im a realist...to see humans as innately good is insanity

SO serial, lets imagine a scenario. You and your family are in a country,who due to it's screwed up policies is threatened to be nuked. You, donot accept the views of your government and are against them. The next day, your city is nuked and you see your child getting, burnt up in front of you (similarly all your other family members). Would you then come on such a forum, and say that what happened to your family was justified?

its out of my control....what about this...you are in a concentration camp and your family is murdered in front of you...and that all could have been prevented if a nuke was used against the wrongdoing nation? how would that fit into your anti nuke mindset...? it goes both ways

At the time I would be in a concentration camp, I would ofcourse like the wrong-doing nation to be nuked (EMOTIONS). Later, however, I would realize, that the people who I wished to be nuked were innocent. It was the fault of the crappy rulers, not the people! IF someone should have been destroyed, it should have been the authorities not the civilians.

take out the personal emotions and see it as a way to end conflict that would undeniable continue for years and years quicker and with less casualties....if total war occured again what would the difference be if a nuke was detonated over london than london being bombed for another 15-25 years? the end would be total destruction both ways...radiation would remain for a while as well but the 500 thousand or so killed from the nuke and its aftermath would be certainly less than that of a war that continued for years and years

But if a country would be nuked, what is nthe guarantee thatit and it's allies donot possess nuclear weapons. As is the case with London, if London would be nuked, the British authorities with their allies would nuke the opposing nation. The result, would be a nuclear showdown, and possibly a great threat to the survival of Human Race.

Avatar image for Minzero
Minzero

463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#65 Minzero
Member since 2005 • 463 Posts
When they think its necessary..
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts

lol....Serial boy.....the fact that you apparently have no idea how devastating a nuclear bomb is even beyond its immediate blast goes to show that you're just here trying to get attention. you're just lousy, mate, hate to break it to ya, but that's just it.

Jinroh_basic
tactical nukes are more likely to be used that that of those used in hiroshima or nagasaki......fallout would be a problem as so forth but it would not spread worldwide...sacrifice is the name of the game....hurt the few to save many more
Avatar image for Jinroh_basic
Jinroh_basic

6413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Jinroh_basic
Member since 2002 • 6413 Posts
[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

lol....Serial boy.....the fact that you apparently have no idea how devastating a nuclear bomb is even beyond its immediate blast goes to show that you're just here trying to get attention. you're just lousy, mate, hate to break it to ya, but that's just it.

Serial-No_3404

tactical nukes are more likely to be used that that of those used in hiroshima or nagasaki......fallout would be a problem as so forth but it would not spread worldwide...sacrifice is the name of the game....hurt the few to save many more

i don't know what you're trying to pull there, coz -

1. in your so called scenario, tactical nuclear weapons didn't even exist

2. the yield of modern TNWs greatly surpass that of WW2 nuclear weapons

in fact, i don't even know why i'm wasting my time with you. the use of nuclear weapons, especially in modern times, can have only one out come -- a near total destruction of mankind. there's really no scenario, no ifs and buts, just this lowdown i'm giving you right here right now. and since i figure the only reason you're talking all this crap is either becoz you have gone a little funny in the head or just trying to seek attention, consider this my final reply to you. have a good life, Dr. Strangelove.

Avatar image for solidgamer
solidgamer

7542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 solidgamer
Member since 2005 • 7542 Posts
when its to late
Avatar image for Serial-No_3404
Serial-No_3404

2876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 Serial-No_3404
Member since 2007 • 2876 Posts
[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"][QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

lol....Serial boy.....the fact that you apparently have no idea how devastating a nuclear bomb is even beyond its immediate blast goes to show that you're just here trying to get attention. you're just lousy, mate, hate to break it to ya, but that's just it.

Jinroh_basic

tactical nukes are more likely to be used that that of those used in hiroshima or nagasaki......fallout would be a problem as so forth but it would not spread worldwide...sacrifice is the name of the game....hurt the few to save many more

i don't know what you're trying to pull there, coz -

1. in your so called scenario, tactical nuclear weapons didn't even exist

2. the yield of modern TNWs greatly surpass that of WW2 nuclear weapons

in fact, i don't even know why i'm wasting my time with you. the use of nuclear weapons, especially in modern times, can have only one out come -- a near total destruction of mankind. there's really no scenario, no ifs and buts, just this lowdown i'm giving you right here right now. and since i figure the only reason you're talking all this crap is either becoz you have gone a little funny in the head or just trying to seek attention, consider this my final reply to you. have a good life, Dr. Strangelove.

debating with you is a waste of time because you fail to see the fact in the sacrifice of a few can save the lives of many....personal views should be let out in a matter such as this because personal views are not what determines whether or not a nuke should be used....you keep looking at the morality in the situation and fail to see that morality has its limits...war is murder....killing of soldier and killing of civilians are both killing....its wrong both ways...i do not support the use of nukes and yes using a nuke is far fetch is todays world....but if and when the situation does come and a nuke is necessary...when will it be used? will it be used in retaliation, to save millions of lives, or will it not be used and condemn millions to a life in a state of total war...take your head out of you you know what and look at the world as it is....a terrible world where right and wrong are one in the same...grow up and stop living a sheltered existence where your days are spend playing videogames
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"]if more are saved than would be killed by the nuke then the end is justified...300 thousands lives lost in a nuclear blast to prevent the loss of over a million people is worth it...the lives of a few for the lives of manyfoxhound_fox

Civilian deaths... no matter how few... are NEVER justified. EVER. Killing civilians is murder, pure and simple. MURDER. Murder whose perpetrators should be tried and punished for.

I think you're being naive. If a country is going to be completely compromised then it could be the only option.

Avatar image for l34052
l34052

3906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#71 l34052
Member since 2005 • 3906 Posts

There is neva a good time to use nuclear weapons at all and they should be completely abolished by everyone that posesses them, they are the single worst invention ever created in mankinds sick and blood thirsty history.

The use of nuclear weapons is a very short sighted approach to war and the world, as soon as people start throwing them around the WHOLE world not just the country attacked suffers. The radioactive fallout can travel the globe and kill potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent people for 50+ yrs and make parts of the planet uninhabitable for 1000's of years but thats ok cos 'we won the war':roll:

If people put even half as much energy and effort into solving the worlds problems as they do in developing ever more destructive ways to kill and inflict pain on their fellow man the world would overnite change for the better.

Unfortunately i see the world being destroyed and the population of the earth bein wiped out by these awful weapons sooner rather than later, and i dont want to start a riot here but its gonna the most paranoid nation on earth that causes it, america.

They have been the only country EVER to use nuclear weapons in anger and yet think they have the authority to tell the rest of the planet what they can and cant do, its insulting and patronising to the rest of us.

It genuinely scares the hell out of me wondering what sort of world my 2 kids are coming up into, my niece who is only 14 months old may not even see her teenage years let alone adult hood thanks to nuclear weapons and the paranoid zealots with their finger on the fire button.

Avatar image for Hewkii
Hewkii

26339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Hewkii
Member since 2006 • 26339 Posts
when conventional warfare fails. which is why you don't have conventional warfare anymore.
Avatar image for Napster06
Napster06

5659

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#73 Napster06
Member since 2004 • 5659 Posts

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Serial-No_3404"]if more are saved than would be killed by the nuke then the end is justified...300 thousands lives lost in a nuclear blast to prevent the loss of over a million people is worth it...the lives of a few for the lives of manyMetalGear_Ninty


Civilian deaths... no matter how few... are NEVER justified. EVER. Killing civilians is murder, pure and simple. MURDER. Murder whose perpetrators should be tried and punished for.

I think you're being naive. If a country is going to be completely compromised then it could be the only option.

He is correct though. No matter what the reason is, a civillian death is murder. You can always say, "Yeah, kill the few to save the many". That is through weapons. Things can always be talked out between one another.

And what if out of those 'few' are related to us?

Avatar image for silence790
silence790

1111

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 silence790
Member since 2008 • 1111 Posts
NEVER!
Avatar image for blacktorn
blacktorn

8299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#75 blacktorn
Member since 2004 • 8299 Posts
Never,there should be no Nuclear bombs at all.
Avatar image for Premier1101
Premier1101

13515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 Premier1101
Member since 2008 • 13515 Posts
when that said nation is about to be nuked itself, atomic warfare is a last resort, or a means to end a war of attrition, which noone really wants. To quote COD4- I know not weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones. Atomic warfare is too mainstream now to not be able to devastate earth.
Avatar image for Lonelynight
Lonelynight

30051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 Lonelynight
Member since 2006 • 30051 Posts
Never
Avatar image for DrSponge
DrSponge

12763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 DrSponge
Member since 2008 • 12763 Posts
The posession of me.