Go Nuclear - Yes or no?

[AgnesIO]

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]

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]

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 - 50
China - <160
India - 70-120
Pakistan - 30-80
North Korea - 0-10
Israel - 75-20

[Movieen]

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 - 50
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]

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

[Technologic]

No single nation would be moronic enough to file a nuclear missile... They'd get blown to pieces by the retaliation

[Jordy]

No single nation would be moronic enough to file a nuclear missile... They'd get blown to pieces by the retaliation

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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.
Thats what I would do anyway