Do You Support Nuclear Weapons?

[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.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jan 23 2005, 12:20 AM'] 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. [/quote]
The best defence is a good offense.

The money is better spent on more and better guns, bullets and tanks.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jan 22 2005, 01:10 PM'] 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? [/quote]
:cough: Let is rain dust :cough:

Have you ever heard of Nuclear (not nuculear) Winter?

[quote]Carl Sagan, and other authors introduced the idea of "Nuclear Winter" in a 1983 scientific journal article (Science, Dec. 1983, pg. 1283). In the theory of Nuclear Winter, after the explosions of a nuclear exchange have died down--the spread of smoke in the atmosphere from nuclear-started fires, could absorb sunlight, darken the sky and ultimately lower the temperature of the Earth from 1 to 5 degrees Centigrade within a few months.

The models in this study further show that a change in the temperature of even one (1) degree Centigrade (which may not sound like much) could unbalance the ecosystem and affect the survival of many species on Earth, including mankind.

The idea of the effects of too much smoke in the sky are not just an idle theory either--something similar may have already happened in the Earth's past, at the end of the Cretaceous period some 65 million years ago. [/quote]

[quote]II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.[/quote]

You set off a bomb that pushs the Earth with so many Newtons of force changing the axis of rotation as well as the speed of the earth's obit. Then, we may need your nukes because we are drifting away from (slowing down) or drifting towards (speeding up) the sun because of those dumb planets... and stupid Sol.

JP2Iloveyou, ummm see the headlines next time,

[quote]Anti-ballistic missile test fails: U.S.-Israeli interceptor misses its target[/quote]

[quote]The midcourse missile failed a test Dec. 15 when it shut down before leaving its silo at the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean. It was the second failure in a major test in two years.

On Dec. 17, the Pentagon announced that it was dropping plans to activate the existing pieces of the missile defense system this year because it had not completed full "shakedown" testing. [/quote]

[quote]A long-range ballistic missile interceptor failed to get off the ground in a December test. So did President George W. Bush’s plans to declare the initial elements of a U.S. anti-missile system operational by the end of last year.

Bush stated Dec. 17, 2002 that the United States would have a limited missile defense system ready for action in 2004. The president’s announcement came only six days after the system failed an experiment, dropping its testing record to five successes in eight attempts to destroy a warhead target under scripted and unrealistic conditions.

The Pentagon responded to the president’s declaration by pouring its energy into fielding elements of the system and did not conduct another test of the system against a missile in flight until Dec. 15, 2004.

Yet, in this most recent test, the system failed again. Seconds before the system’s interceptor was to soar into space toward a mock warhead, it “automatically shut down due to an unknown anomaly,” according to a statement issued by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The interceptor never left its silo. The target, which was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, splashed into the Pacific Ocean.[/quote]

[quote]A target missile was launched, but the interceptor rocket never got off the ground.

The Pentagon called this obvious failure a "very good training exercise."

Of eight tests of missile defense conducted in recent years, three have been outright failures. The others were "successful" only under highly scripted and artificial conditions. To date, only 2 of 10 key components of the system have been proved workable, according to a General Accounting Office study.[/quote]

By the way, Bush intends to spend a bit over 10,000,000,000 dollars on the system next year. But we have to cut school lunch funding?

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 23 2005, 01:03 AM'] You set off a bomb that pushs the Earth with so many Newtons of force changing the axis of rotation as well as the speed of the earth's obit. [/quote]

The only way for that to happen is if the blast forces material past the earth's field or the blasts work in such a way that it alter's the earth's core movements. Seems unlikely.

It can happen though. The indian ocean earthquake was so powerful in moving the earth that the GPS system is now out-of-sync by 20 metres in the affected regions.

Edited January 22, 2005 by RandomProddy

[Socrates]

Ronald Reagan's much-derided arms race against the USSR as one of the major factors in winning the Cold War against Communism. It helped drive the USSR broke and ended an era of oppression and tyranny.

It's a powerful deterrent. Reagan never started WWIII or a nuclear holocaust like the liberals kept howling throughout the '80s!

Nuke 'em till they glow, baby!

Edited January 23, 2005 by Socrates

[Guest Aluigi]

one of the government's primary purposes is to protect. a missile defence system if it could be done would be the most just military spending that ever happened.

anyway, there is a system in place to shoot a nuke at an asteroid in space. the problem now is that they are not perfect at detecting the asteroids, once they are they can save us from the asteroid. most astronomers that once believed impact was impossible now believe it to be inevitable, and there's nothing wrong with us being prepared to knock an asteroid off its course.

anyway, that's the only reason I support nukes. if anyone ever uses them on any human population, may God Almighty have mercy on their soul. I'll tell you one thing, our bishops better be prepared to bar such a person from receiving Holy Communion. If ever there was a manifest public mortal sin...

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 23 2005, 02:06 AM'] anyway, that's the only reason I support nukes. if anyone ever uses them on any human population, may God Almighty have mercy on their soul. [/quote]
What if you were nuking someone else's nukes?

[Guest Aluigi]

[u]on the human population[/u]

Perhaps if you were forced to nuke someone else's nukes and there were innocent bystanders you didn't intend to kill.. but that's really not a feasable scenario to stop anyone from using their nukes.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 22 2005, 07:02 PM'] Ronald Reagan's much-derided arms race against the USSR as one of the major factors in winning the Cold War against Communism. It helped drive the USSR broke and ended an era of oppression and tyranny.

It's a powerful deterrent. Reagan never started WWIII or a nuclear holocaust like the liberals kept howling throughout the '80s!

Nuke 'em till they glow, baby! [/quote]
I sometimes wonder about people when they bring up Reagan. Reagan did start and "win" (as much as you can win an arms race) during the Cold War. It helped to drive the USSR into bankruptence, BUT nearly did the same to us. If Russia hadn't "lost" the race when it did, the US would have lost a few years later.

Moreover, arms races have a tendency to become very unstable. That is one of the leading causes of World War One. Never has an arms race made the world more "stable." Look at what become of all the old excess Russian nuclear weapons... yeh.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 22 2005, 08:41 PM'] I sometimes wonder about people when they bring up Reagan. Reagan did start and "win" (as much as you can win an arms race) during the Cold War. It helped to drive the USSR into bankruptence, BUT nearly did the same to us. If Russia hadn't "lost" the race when it did, the US would have lost a few years later.

Moreover, arms races have a tendency to become very unstable. That is one of the leading causes of World War One. Never has an arms race made the world more "stable." Look at what become of all the old excess Russian nuclear weapons... yeh. [/quote]
The U.S. rawked in the '80s! Look at the disaster that was the Soviet Union (widespread povery - I mean REAL poverty, like we don't know here, environmental disaster, etc.)! Don't tell me we were pretty much the same. Get away from your NPR, dude, and start looking at the facts of history.

Too bad you miss the USSR!
For the life of me, I will never understand these pinkos!

The Cold War is over and we won!

[delta557]

[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]
Dude, this guy knows what he's talkin about. I'm a hardcore conservative and I'm quite the military enthusiast, but I still don't like nukes. The thought of nuclear war is seriously terrifying to me. And now there are talks of us going to war with Iran! If North Korea attacks us, they'll do a little damage, but that country is so small that it'll become the worlds largest hole once we get done with it. But we can do equal or more damage with conventional weapons, I think. I mean, I'd rather us assassinate some people using special ops than actually going to nuclear war. But the problem is, Country #1 wont unarm because Country #2 is armed. And Country #2 wont unarm because Country #1 is here.