Why we shouldn't launch nuclear bombs at enemies?

I'm very dissapointed in some people right now. People who go to my school as well as some people on here think it's a good idea to launch bombs at our enemies.

It's not a good idea. Launching a nuclear bomb somewhere does irreprable damage to the environment. Look at the damage that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that was done then, and still affects Japan to this day. Radiation would also travel to other countries that we don't affected because of their political benefit.

Bombing the Middle East isn't a good idea because we get our oil from them. We would destroy tons of oil drills, and we'd also have guns pointed back at us for bombing them. People, please, don't go nuclear bomb happy because it will do serious damage.

Now, I'm not saying that we should abolish nuclear bombs because they have helped. I think nuclear bombs are one of the reasons we haven't had WW3.

 

Oh god, for a minute there I was afraid you were advocating nuking people. Thank god I read it xD

But in all seriousness: The ever present danger of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) somewhat prevent a huge fall-out between the East and West from 1950 to 1990, and whilst I am grateful for nations refraining from nuking each other to shit and wiping us all out, I still feel nuclear weapons are pointless. As Gorbachev learnt- nuclear missiles are expensive, are costly to maintain, add next to nothing to your security once you get about 100 of them, and are just making the problem worse. It's much like drinking alcohol excessively to forget your problem. The alcohol may make you forget your problem, but if you drink too much and something happens it will be far worse. Ultimately, I understand the role the weapons play, and the security they provide, but I seriously feel that what nuclear weapons do is have military generals sign civilians up to war instantly. The Geneva Convention states to avoid civilian causalities, and yet that is all a nuclear bomb would do. There would be no military target justifiable to bomb with such firepower.

 

As someone from a country with no nuclear weapons, I don't see much point to them. However, I understand how they've done some good.

I don't think you should be disappointed in your classmates, as they are entitled to their opinions. On my journies through the internet, I've ran into several people very pro-nuclear warfare. A lot of things they've told me sound like they came right out of a propaganda poster This is the same for the other side of the argument. Oftentimes, people's opinions come from things they've been told, and not out of their own rationale. And younger people tend to be more impressionable. Just some food for thought.

 

I have to agree with your last point, the only reason the Cold War didn't become a war was because of nuclear weapons, as launching a nuke is effectively suicide. Sure nukes cost billions, but isn't the best weapon the one you don't have to use?

Although I am for nuclear disarmament, by firing one missile at a time :roflmao:

 

I agree. Nuclear bombs not only kill people, but they cause immense suffering. The slow death from radiation, the burns and the deformed children who are born from survivors for generation. And then there is the damage to land so crops can't grow. Also, firing the first nuclear weapon would be practically difficult as convincing the EU to side with America would be very difficult, after such a vicious attack. Killing thousands of innocent civilians for a few terrorist lives is never a good deal, anyway. And if we nuke ISIS it will only create another Al Qaeda-esque situation, with member separated and operating in cells. They could even start an insurgency, becoming geographically sparse, and much more deadly.

 

So wait, why is this in entertainment and media?

Anyway, the nuke is there as a deterrence, not for use. It is meant to be a weapon that can deal devastating damage to a country, and therefore any country that has such a weapon will often be left alone by others, by fear of retaliation with such deadly force.

The problem is that, terrorism is not a country. It has no economy, it has no civilians, it has no government, it has no industry. It is an idea. An idea of hatred and cruelty, of wickedness and lies, but an idea, nonetheless. You can't nuke an idea. You can't deal physical damage to something that has no form. All you do would just be destroying innocent lives.

And in fact, a nuke to terrorism would just fuel it more. They have always play the victim card, the underdog to an oppressive western world that is stepping over their way of living, their freedom, their rightful place in the world. Doesn't matter if they are lies, since that is what give them motivation. If we nuke them and kill them, we just confirm their lies to be truth. Further more, the people that were hurt by us would have even more reasons to hate us and continue the cycle of hate with further acts of horrible terrorism.

If we are to bomb them, we bomb them with knowledge and love.

I suggest we start doing airdrop of supplies. Baby clothes, children toys, books, candies, women sanitary products, etc. All those things that let those people have a little better life, empowering women, educating children. Things that are useless to continuing a war, but so useful for living a peaceful life. Those would be much more devastating to an ideological enemy than any nuke could ever do.

 

Interesting idea. I thought this was going to talk about nuclear arms falling into the hands of fanatics, but your opinion is just as valid.

However, I do feel you are overstating terrorism.

Terrorism exists in most (if not all nations) in the form of any fundamentalists. There are many conservative christians who are just as dangerous as islamic fanatics. There are many people fighting for freedom from dictators in Africa who are terrorists. There are equally those who fight to impose their own dictatorships. There are those preyed on by their own governments and branded terrorists.

Everyone believes what they are fighting for is right and just- the word terrorist is very subjective, widespread and really type casted. The answer to terrorism isnt airdrops, but to build a system that is more appealing than what they offer.

 

Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and all the operations in South America and Africa, would like a world with you.

Sure, it wasn't NATO vs Warsaw Pact directly, but all the money, lives, and technology spread across the world, just to "win one for the team", qualifies it as war.

Nuclear weapons simply moved the battle from First World nations to Second and Third World ones. To some, that may be a victory...

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and out of respect for anyone I refuse to share my views on that on a site that is supposed to welcome all people of all around the world. But I think leaving the middle east alone to settle their own chaos is the best thing to do for all of us. Protecting our own interests and our borders should be the number one priority.

 

While they were indirect consequences, those operations largely centred round the western fear of the spread of communism.

 

I gotta say, all the people I know (of) at my school that go around acting all 'swag' with their stupid slang an unneccesary swearing and going on about how great they are at 'insert generic fps here' know jack shit about anything a when talking about something actually interesting (normally something about war in history), they say :
Twat: 'Hey, sir, they should of just nuked everyone and then go in with black ops to take out surviviors'
Me: 'Y'know they didn't have nuclear bombs ir warheads then, right?'
Twat: 'shut up gay lord, I'll nuke whatever the fuck I want!'
Me: *rubs face in textbook*

Do they have no brain whatsoever? Seriously! And then all they do when they get home is play their generic fps, yell a bit, get their '10 kill streak' or something, and 'nuke' the map. Even though that these are nothing like actual nuclear bombs! They don't question it, they're twats! And thus, the next generation of kids are going to be so bloody brain dead that they believe that 'There's a person I don't like... Nuke!' When these are weapons of mass desturction! You wanna drop a nuke on me? Well gow about realise that they are massive and you would die to, fuck nugget!
*clears throat*
Sorry about the rant... I wrote wat more than I intended to...

 

If it makes you feel better, I used to annihilate First-Person Shooter glory hounds in Real-Time Strategy games -- with nukes. Most tended to get pissed about this, because their whole "Just Nuke It" strategy didn't work on me, but it worked on them.

 

No, that just pisses me off more because it's in no way accurate! If it was real life, just having more nuclear warheads than your oppsition would be plenty good enough to have a ceasefire. This is why I like total war games. There's a diplomatic side as well as the kill and take over all side.

I have gotten really worked up about this... Time to go watch people cut each other up mailiciously with incredible large swords with moments of peace and care.

 

Nuclear bombs is a big no no and I think it's disgusting when countries boast about having big nuclear warheads in their pockets.

 

Nuclear bombs dont just kill innocent people, they also destroy the flora and fauna!

 

Nuclear bombing, please NO
It has an everlasting effect.

 

Just watched V for Vendetta...
How often is it so that in search of adventures unbetold do we accept the fold, the cape, the status quo as be it may, weaving our own disillusions in the frames of our mirrors as we strain to reach for that which by our nature we so abhore, the chorus of a neverending torrential rain of comprimise, of fear, conformity, of the unheeded unpeeled potential of that which we lie to ourselves we long ago forgot?

In other words, YES, MAD > No total war between major powers for the last generation. But why, really, must be stop there? What is our reason for settling for less? And more significantly, what is our justification?

 

Everyone has brought up great points. Many of you agree with the fact that we shouldn't use nuclear technology. Mainly because of how it will affect us (as in mankind), and the environment.

 

Honestly I agree with you, but these priorities are whacked. How about "because it kills thousands/tens of thousands of innocents who want no part in the conflict"? The other things are eh; we need to avoid using nukes because it is among the worst savageries we can inflict upon other humans. Its use during WWII remains controversial only because it probably saved more lives by ending the war than it eliminated in the blasts. Our wars today aren't a tenth as bad as that one, yet our warheads are orders of magnitude bigger and more hellish.

However, the reasoning behind having nukes is the same behind personal gun ownership-- you hope you never have to use it, but against people who feel differently, it's there if you do.

 

Violence is never the answer. Not only nuclear bombs kill so many people, it damages the environment and the planet. It doesn't just affect the surrounding areas, but goes way further; proof is the Fukushima disaster and how its still tearing up the west coast of the USA - which means that the U.S. food supply is now contaminated with radiation.