PDA

View Full Version : Go Nuclear - Yes or no?



AgnesIO
16-04-2008, 04:08 PM
Ok there has been many new's articles and thing about nuclear bombs. I was thinking should we use Nuclear bombs to end wars - or will it just make things worse?

Good Point:

It ended the second world war when America hit Japan with Nuclear bombs - otherwise the Japanese proably wouldn't have surendered.

Bad Point:

They destroy a lot of places and polute a lot!


Views?

Movieen
16-04-2008, 05:16 PM
It'd be WWI all over again, due to Alliances etc.

If we nuke, Iraq etc, China fire back, as China pretty much want a war.
France, then steps in against China, Russia then steps in against France.
America then steps in against Russia.

Think of it as WWIII.

mat64
16-04-2008, 05:36 PM
Nuclear arms have only ever been used twice and that was to bring an end to something that was already causing misery for many countries around the world. If the bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it's possible the war could have gone on for much longer and resulted in greater loss of life to the allied forces, however I doubt this would have been equal to the loss of like in both nuclear bombings.

The world is holding itself ransom at the moment to a certain extent, there are 9 countries in the world which have nuclear arms this is potentially very dangerous. The world is in an understanding that if a nuclear missile was launched there would be the same reaction from almost every other country which holds nuclear arms, essentially we'd end up making most of our planet uninhabitable. Below are estimated figures of how many nuclear warheads the 9 countries each own, I find the numbers staggering.

The numbers aside Russia and the United States represent the following; Active missiles / total (information taken from Wikipedia)

United States - 4,075 / 5,535
Russia - 5,830 / 16,000
United Kingdom - 200
France - <350
China - <160
India - 70-120
Pakistan - 30-80
North Korea - 0-10
Israel - 75-20

Movieen
16-04-2008, 05:39 PM
Nuclear arms have only ever been used twice and that was to bring an end to something that was already causing misery for many countries around the world. If the bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it's possible the war could have gone on for much longer and resulted in greater loss of life to the allied forces, however I doubt this would have been equal to the loss of like in both nuclear bombings.

The world is holding itself ransom at the moment to a certain extent, there are 9 countries in the world which have nuclear arms this is potentially very dangerous. The world is in an understanding that if a nuclear missile was launched there would be the same reaction from almost every other country which holds nuclear arms, essentially we'd end up making most of our planet uninhabitable. Below are estimated figures of how many nuclear warheads the 9 countries each own, I find the numbers staggering.

The numbers aside Russia and the United States represent the following; Active missiles / total (information taken from Wikipedia)

United States - 4,075 / 5,535
Russia - 5,830 / 16,000
United Kingdom - 200
France - <350
China - <160
India - 70-120
Pakistan - 30-80
North Korea - 0-10
Israel - 75-20


Yup.

As I've said,

(> = attacks/nukes etc)

US > Iraq
UK > Iraq (Nuke dropped)
China > UK (Nuke dropped)
France > China (Nuke dropped)
US > China (Nuke dropped)
Russia > US (Nuke dropped)

AgnesIO
16-04-2008, 07:08 PM
Yeh i agree with you there.

Nuclear COULD start a war and it COULD end it!

Just imagine if someone bombed a place where they are keepnig the nuclear bombs :O

Technologic
16-04-2008, 08:07 PM
No single nation would be moronic enough to file a nuclear missile... They'd get blown to pieces by the retaliation

Jordy
16-04-2008, 11:25 PM
No single nation would be moronic enough to file a nuclear missile... They'd get blown to pieces by the retaliationIt's so very true. If anyone was ever going to set off a nuclear bomb again, it would of been in the Cold war.

If someone sent a nuclear bomb to your country would you agree to sending one (or more) back? I think it's fair to send them back and finish the country off :P

Mind you the UK would just say 'HUMAN RIGHTS MEANS WE CANNOT SEND BACK A NUCLEAR BOMB, EVEN IF THE RUSSIAN'S HAVE BOMBED US 9 TIMES OVER'

Lycan
16-04-2008, 11:33 PM
only skim read this but

in Your Negitives you fail to mention the loss of life, especially in the case study you used of the American bombings, that of the horrific loss of Civilians, disfigurations, burns, Birth defects, tumours, prevent the soil from being used easily again for crops

AgnesIO
17-04-2008, 06:29 AM
No single nation would be moronic enough to file a nuclear missile... They'd get blown to pieces by the retaliation

Therefore the American's and Russians will come up with something even more stupidso they are the only people with them :(


It's so very true. If anyone was ever going to set off a nuclear bomb again, it would of been in the Cold war.

If someone sent a nuclear bomb to your country would you agree to sending one (or more) back? I think it's fair to send them back and finish the country off :P

Mind you the UK would just say 'HUMAN RIGHTS MEANS WE CANNOT SEND BACK A NUCLEAR BOMB, EVEN IF THE RUSSIAN'S HAVE BOMBED US 9 TIMES OVER'

WOW i could not agree more! I think i like you!I have always said this that anything that happens to us Humber Right's would stop us retaliating.

You have to remember the people that shot it were only following orders. etc etc.

God our law is crap.

Nereo
17-04-2008, 02:28 PM
There is a simple way to stop the problems, give Nuclear Weapons to every nation and then no one will wanna fire at each other for fear of retaliation. :D
Thats what I would do anyway

partie2
17-04-2008, 02:37 PM
tottally disagree with using necular material for bombs or any kind of warfare as they cause so much damage to people who arent even involved with the problems which are happening.

I do agree though with nuclear power for electricity etc as it is a far green way or generating power.

AgnesIO
17-04-2008, 03:03 PM
There is a simple way to stop the problems, give Nuclear Weapons to every nation and then no one will wanna fire at each other for fear of retaliation. :D
Thats what I would do anyway

lmao :D Good idea but tbh countries like America probably still would. America have power over EVERY country as they have the most Nuclear Bombs :8


tottally disagree with using necular material for bombs or any kind of warfare as they cause so much damage to people who arent even involved with the problems which are happening.

I do agree though with nuclear power for electricity etc as it is a far green way or generating power.

Good comment :eusa_clap However isn't nuclear power the one where thousands of tons of fumes are preduced out of huge chimneys?

The bit about the Civilians is so ture. How would we like it if our family were killed or even us? :(

Movieen
17-04-2008, 07:01 PM
Wow, Dom, most countries have nukes, not just Russia & USA.


But, honestely.

We need a better, world, BETTER LEADERS.

Jordy
17-04-2008, 07:37 PM
However isn't nuclear power the one where thousands of tons of fumes are preduced out of huge chimneys?No they're coal powered power stations, they release large amount of C02 into the air from burning the fuels.

As far as I am aware Nuclear power doesn't damage the environment, it's just very dangerous, very expensive and it creates lots of nuclear waste which is difficult to dispose of.

If anyone wants to see the danger's of Nuclear power you should see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Nuclear Power Station ran by Russia on the Ukraine border wasn't maintained too well and basically it wiped out a few towns and they're still pretty uninhabitable 20 years.

AgnesIO
18-04-2008, 10:36 AM
Wow, Dom, most countries have nukes, not just Russia & USA.


But, honestely.

We need a better, world, BETTER LEADERS.

Yes MOST countries have nukes. But as i said the people that threaten to use them are russia and the USA. Also USA have the most - Which ios good for the UK as Our PM and there President always seem to lvoe each other.

partie2
20-04-2008, 10:30 AM
lmao :D Good idea but tbh countries like America probably still would. America have power over EVERY country as they have the most Nuclear Bombs :8



Good comment :eusa_clap However isn't nuclear power the one where thousands of tons of fumes are preduced out of huge chimneys?

The bit about the Civilians is so ture. How would we like it if our family were killed or even us? :(

As far as I know nuclear power stations dont admit damaging fumes, the bit chimney like towers they have are cooling towers which only have steam coming out of them. If they were to build nuclear power stations then they should be built in a location which is not near where people live.

Plux
23-04-2008, 05:27 PM
Yes MOST countries have nukes. But as i said the people that threaten to use them are russia and the USA. Also USA have the most - Which ios good for the UK as Our PM and there President always seem to lvoe each other.

Dude, USA, aren't threatening, if anything hapens, South Korea & China are threatening..

and Russia have the most.

Russia - 5,830 (active) / 16,000 (total)



Please, do not come in here, acting all knowledgeable, when I can proove you wrong.

If one nuke flies, other countries will fire.

& at Giano, giving more nukes to other countries? How idiotic are you?

Yoshimitsui
23-04-2008, 05:29 PM
One does, then they all do it! Very bad idea.

Plux
23-04-2008, 05:31 PM
One does, then they all do it! Very bad idea.

Someone with sense. (Finally)

Lenta
24-04-2008, 09:02 PM
Dude, USA, aren't threatening, if anything hapens, South Korea & China are threatening..

and Russia have the most.

Russia - 5,830 (active) / 16,000 (total)



Please, do not come in here, acting all knowledgeable, when I can proove you wrong.

If one nuke flies, other countries will fire.

& at Giano, giving more nukes to other countries? How idiotic are you?

Agree'd.

DJ-Dom, you need to wisen up about this.

AgnesIO
26-04-2008, 07:45 AM
Dude, USA, aren't threatening, if anything hapens, South Korea & China are threatening..

and Russia have the most.

Russia - 5,830 (active) / 16,000 (total)



Please, do not come in here, acting all knowledgeable, when I can proove you wrong.

If one nuke flies, other countries will fire.

& at Giano, giving more nukes to other countries? How idiotic are you?

Why do you think Russia and USA are always having arguements. USA threaten to use nuclear missiles so russia dont invade somewhere else.

Also a debate is where you discuss so idon't have any idea why you are calling members who havent been temperarily BANNED IDIOTIC.

Lenta
26-04-2008, 08:27 AM
Why do you think Russia and USA are always having arguements. USA threaten to use nuclear missiles so russia dont invade somewhere else.

Also a debate is where you discuss so idon't have any idea why you are calling members who havent been temperarily BANNED IDIOTIC.

Just because a member is banned, does not make them idiotic, unless they have done something stupid to cause it. As, I've seen, Plux rightly defended himself in an arguement.

& As far as I know, Russia & USA are some form of peace at the moment.
Not arguing, and USA haven't threatened for a while, they've discusse to threaten, and a debate is a discussion of TRUE FACTs, you're talking a load of bull.

HotelUser
04-05-2008, 01:37 AM
This isn't an issue at the moment, there was never a nuclear war because governments knew if they were the first to launch a nuclear explosive, the pattern would be followed by many other countries...leading to Armageddon.

The American Geophysical Union has discovered that even a minor scaled nuclear war would create many direct fatalities (as many as in WWII). Moreover our global climate would be changed for decades.

Virgin Mary
04-05-2008, 02:19 AM
I don't think you'd be able to build it far away from people so that it wouldn't affect them if it blew up. When one in Russia blew up the fallout reached Wales.

Nain
04-05-2008, 05:35 PM
No single nation would be moronic enough to file a nuclear missile... They'd get blown to pieces by the retaliation
i know that you said NATIONS, what about Terrorist *Shivers* :'(

soz but thats like setting all of these:
:nrthrone: on fire :O
Ending the (habbo) world forever

timROGERS
04-05-2008, 09:11 PM
Theoretically, no one will ever launch a nuclear missile! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Zak
06-05-2008, 08:15 PM
For Power Usage - Yes

For Bombs - No

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!