Do You Support Nuclear Weapons?

[crusader1234]

As Aloysius would say, discuss.

[jezic]

no. They are created for destruction.

I only wish we had nuclear life things. We could blow them up and make life better for everyone instead of destroying so much and marring God's creation beyond repair.

[Joseph]

I wouldn't think anyone is actually [u]in favor[/u] of nuclear weapons, so that's a huge "no". I wish they didn't exist. Unfortunately, they exist and are always a potential threat if they fall into the wrong hands. I think that the U.S. has to maintain an arsenal if for no other reason than to have a deterrent to other nations seeking nuclear capabilities. I just hope that other nations do not let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states. It's already scary enough knowing North Korea has nuclear capabilities. I don't see it likely that a country like N. Korea would actually use them as a first-strike because of the fear of retaliation, but terrorists are a different story.

Edited January 22, 2005 by Joseph

[crusader1234]

The United States has no need for Nuclear Weapons. Missile Defense, possibly until global disarmament, but never Nuclear Arsenal. Nuclear weaponry cannot be justified.

[jezic]

a deterrent will do no good. The people that will use them now don't care. You can't shoot a nuke at them anymore. They are to spread out.

They are useless and should be destroyed.

now to make an un-nuclear bomb that fixes stuff......

[curtins]

i dont beleive that nuke's are good at all and i hope they never get used but the US needs to have some- just what if- you never know- we could be attacked by aliens and need to shoot a nuke at their ship- you really just dont know.

[crusader1234]

To quote one of my favourite Popes (John XXIII) from one of my favourite encyclicals (Pacem in Terris)

[quote]Need for Disarmament

112. Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man's dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control. In the words of Pope Pius XII: "The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not on any account be permitted to engulf the human race for a third time.'' (59)

113. Everyone, however, must realize that, unless this process of disarmament be thoroughgoing and complete, and reach men's very souls, it is impossible to stop the arms race, or to reduce armaments, or—and this is the main thing—ultimately to abolish them entirely. Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men's minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today's world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.
[/quote]

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:06 AM'] The United States has no need for Nuclear Weapons. Missile Defense, possibly until global disarmament, but never Nuclear Arsenal. Nuclear weaponry cannot be justified. [/quote]
I agree 100%.

God bless,

Jen

[Joseph]

I would have to agree that the U.S. needs to get rid of them, but I don't see it happening until every other country is rid of theirs first.

Let us all pray that one day they will be no more.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I remember living in fear of a nuclear war during the end of the Cold war.

I hope my son never lives in that fear.

[Guest Aluigi]

I watched this movie in astronomy class about how we could be hit by an asteroid at any time. HOWEVER, they also said they have developed a system by which they can shoot a nuke at it and knock it off course. That could be an important tool

Anyway, yeah, they have this system ready and if they detect the one asteroid that will inevitably collide with the earth, they will be able to shoot a nuke at it and knock it off course.

Everything usually has some good use. So I'm gonna vote yes just to spite you, but I'm voting yes simply to deter the asteroids.

[curtins]

yeah like asteroids or aliens or something like that

or WHAT if north korea decided to nuke us- we need to have some nukes just as retaliatory dont we?

[curtins]

yeah like asteroids or aliens or something like that

or WHAT if north korea decided to nuke us- we need to have some nukes just as retaliatory dont we?

[Guest Aluigi]

nuke retaliation.. eh... no. killing their civilians because they killed our civilians isn't justified.

[spathariossa]

I support nuclear weapons as a deterrent but not in actual use. Although, I do support the atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel they were justified and furthermore represent a form of attack no less humane than the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo which nobody seems to know about.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 22 2005, 09:30 PM'] I support nuclear weapons as a deterrent but not in actual use. [/quote]
Ditto.

[JazzforJesus]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:30 PM'] I support nuclear weapons as a deterrent but not in actual use. Although, I do support the atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel they were justified and furthermore represent a form of attack no less humane than the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo which nobody seems to know about. [/quote]
My History Class had a discussion about this situation and Trumans desicion to use it.

The reason truman decided to use the bomb instead of continue fighting actually made sense. The studies of the one test drop(they really should of done more tests) said that 20,000 people would be killed if droped on one of the 6 cities (# may not be true but using it as general idea, yes there were 6 choices to be dropped on). Truman had figured out that 25,000 men would be lost in this war if they didnt use it so he figured, Less people will die if i drop the bomb. so he did.

The test results were false, something like 80,000 died when bomb was dropped and aftermass was even more lives lost. They shouldnt have dropped the bomb but they thought it was going to end the war with less live lost. What they should of done was do more tests in NM.

Oh and i did learn about the firebombing... didnt we do something similiar to bagdad at the beginning in what the press called wonder and awe, or something like

[spathariossa]

[quote name='JazzforJesus' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:45 PM'] My History Class had a discussion about this situation and Trumans desicion to use it.

The reason truman decided to use the bomb instead of continue fighting actually made sense. The studies of the one test drop(they really should of done more tests) said that 20,000 people would be killed if droped on one of the 6 cities (# may not be true but using it as general idea, yes there were 6 choices to be dropped on). Truman had figured out that 25,000 men would be lost in this war if they didnt use it so he figured, Less people will die if i drop the bomb. so he did.

The test results were false, something like 80,000 died when bomb was dropped and aftermass was even more lives lost. They shouldnt have dropped the bomb but they thought it was going to end the war with less live lost. What they should of done was do more tests in NM.

Oh and i did learn about the firebombing... didnt we do something similiar to bagdad at the beginning in what the press called wonder and awe, or something like [/quote]
Shock and Awe. And no it was nothing the same. We did not level the city of Baghdad in a raging inferno killing 300,000 civilians as much as the liberals would like you to believe the contrary.

Secondly, the Japanese wouldn't surrender until we dropped both Atomic bombs on them. Clearly, the decision to drop them was correct because otherwise we would have been involved in a messy invasion of the home islands.

[Guest Aluigi]

someone needs to develope shields or something.!

Edited January 22, 2005 by Aluigi

[JP2Iloveyou]

we've been trying to develop a missile defense system but the democrats in general and dems on the Armed Services committee in particular have been successful in stopping the program so far.