Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Do We Really Need Nuclear Weapons
http://
1. Why do we have them ?
2. Under what circumstances would we use them ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
retrocop - //A Daesh held town could easily be wiped out with a quick salvo.! No one would like to live there or rebuild for some time. //
Do you use phrases like 'collateral damage' and 'friendly fire'?
Just wondering - because your apparent willingness to obliterate an entire town which must include innocent civilians and homes containing women and children suggests that you are au fait with such chilling expressions.
Do you use phrases like 'collateral damage' and 'friendly fire'?
Just wondering - because your apparent willingness to obliterate an entire town which must include innocent civilians and homes containing women and children suggests that you are au fait with such chilling expressions.
The difficulty is Eddie that nuclear weapons exist, and until the apocryphal day when the world unites to get rid of them, there will always be "the other lot" who we cannot trust, who have them And someone has to have some sort of response to that;
Then the question arises, out of all the "good" people, who should shoulder the expense? Should it just be the US and maybe France? Why should Britain not? As a nuclear power we possess a lot more diplomatic clout and influence at the UN: unsatisfactory I know, but sometimes these things go beyond mere rational arguments
Then the question arises, out of all the "good" people, who should shoulder the expense? Should it just be the US and maybe France? Why should Britain not? As a nuclear power we possess a lot more diplomatic clout and influence at the UN: unsatisfactory I know, but sometimes these things go beyond mere rational arguments
I realise N weapons exist,but having our own is no answer. We need 'Hi tech conventional forces' that can get anywhere in the world fast and act to destroy or neutralise any 'rogue' Nuclear weapons before they can be used.
A Nuclear strike anywhere in North America or Europe would result in a scale of destruction that in effect means the 'end of the world'.
I am old enough to remember the cold war of the 1960s when we were in permanent fear of hearing the '4 minute warning' that signalled the end of civilisation. I never want to hold that fear again!
A Nuclear strike anywhere in North America or Europe would result in a scale of destruction that in effect means the 'end of the world'.
I am old enough to remember the cold war of the 1960s when we were in permanent fear of hearing the '4 minute warning' that signalled the end of civilisation. I never want to hold that fear again!
No I didn't use those two words. You did!!!
Seeing as YOU used collateral damage I might remind you that nuclear bombs were used in warfare was on two cities full of civilians. It stopped a long war in its tracks and made people stop and think about the awesome capability they could have unleashed on them. No nuclear wars since so it's deterrent value tells its own story.
Seeing as YOU used collateral damage I might remind you that nuclear bombs were used in warfare was on two cities full of civilians. It stopped a long war in its tracks and made people stop and think about the awesome capability they could have unleashed on them. No nuclear wars since so it's deterrent value tells its own story.
^^ Retro The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were just 'firecrackers' in comparison to a modern Nuclear bomb. One single bomb can be over 1500 times the destructive force of a WW2 H bomb. One single 'high yield' weapon detonated at 150,000ft over North America would wipe out the entire North American continent.
retrocop - //No I didn't use those two words. You did!!! //
Four words - but let's not get bogged down in semantics.
I appreciate that you didn't use them in this post - my enquiry was if you use such chilling phrases which the military use when they speak of the deaths of innocent people in terms which utterly minimise the humanity of death and loss of other human beings.
//Seeing as YOU used collateral damage I might remind you that nuclear bombs were used in warfare was on two cities full of civilians. It stopped a long war in its tracks and made people stop and think about the awesome capability they could have unleashed on them. No nuclear wars since so it's deterrent value tells its own story. //
To suggest that the absence of future nuclear wars is a direct result of the 'warning' of the destruction visited on Japan is a pretty tall stretch.
As to the 'deterrent' notion - since the debate is about the on-going and continually escalating cost of developing ever more sophisticated ways of destroying other nations - it would appear that governments with nuclear weapons - including ours - are not 'discouraged' in the slightest, in fact, quite the opposite!
Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred seventy-one years ago - it would be nice to think that the concepts of humanity and avoidance of death and destruction have moved on somewhat, as part of the overall civilisation of the world populations - let's hope so.
Four words - but let's not get bogged down in semantics.
I appreciate that you didn't use them in this post - my enquiry was if you use such chilling phrases which the military use when they speak of the deaths of innocent people in terms which utterly minimise the humanity of death and loss of other human beings.
//Seeing as YOU used collateral damage I might remind you that nuclear bombs were used in warfare was on two cities full of civilians. It stopped a long war in its tracks and made people stop and think about the awesome capability they could have unleashed on them. No nuclear wars since so it's deterrent value tells its own story. //
To suggest that the absence of future nuclear wars is a direct result of the 'warning' of the destruction visited on Japan is a pretty tall stretch.
As to the 'deterrent' notion - since the debate is about the on-going and continually escalating cost of developing ever more sophisticated ways of destroying other nations - it would appear that governments with nuclear weapons - including ours - are not 'discouraged' in the slightest, in fact, quite the opposite!
Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred seventy-one years ago - it would be nice to think that the concepts of humanity and avoidance of death and destruction have moved on somewhat, as part of the overall civilisation of the world populations - let's hope so.
retrocop - //Andy- Hughes
The expression friendly fire is a term coined by an idiot for those who are stupid enough to use it. Nothing friendly about being fired at. Blue on Blue is more logical :-) //
Is 'blue on blue' the new PC term then? I will add that to my vocabulary, thank you.
But whatever term used, the death of innocent civilians is not mitigated by giving it some sort of trendy short-hand label - at least not from here it isn't.
The expression friendly fire is a term coined by an idiot for those who are stupid enough to use it. Nothing friendly about being fired at. Blue on Blue is more logical :-) //
Is 'blue on blue' the new PC term then? I will add that to my vocabulary, thank you.
But whatever term used, the death of innocent civilians is not mitigated by giving it some sort of trendy short-hand label - at least not from here it isn't.
-- answer removed --
Baldric - //Retro, you are of course correct and most sensible people will see that unless they live in a land full of tree hugging fluffy bunnies. //
What you mean is, you agree with retro's statement, which is not the same as stating that it is correct.
If one person avers that the earth is flat, and another agrees with him, that makes them in agreement - it does not however, mean that either of them is correct.
Advising that people who agree with both of you,enjoy the status of being 'sensible' while those who do not are 'tree hugging fluffy bunnies' is similarly meaningless - unless used to bolster your view to yourself, if to no-one else.
What you mean is, you agree with retro's statement, which is not the same as stating that it is correct.
If one person avers that the earth is flat, and another agrees with him, that makes them in agreement - it does not however, mean that either of them is correct.
Advising that people who agree with both of you,enjoy the status of being 'sensible' while those who do not are 'tree hugging fluffy bunnies' is similarly meaningless - unless used to bolster your view to yourself, if to no-one else.
PiedPiper - //Of course we need them. If someone waves a big stick, we need a bigger stick, Common sense really. //
I think you'll find that the debate is rather more complex than that.
But your scenario does rather depend on the notion that our enemies are in possession of the smaller of the two sticks, and I would seriously doubt that.
I think you'll find that the debate is rather more complex than that.
But your scenario does rather depend on the notion that our enemies are in possession of the smaller of the two sticks, and I would seriously doubt that.
retrocop - //Andy-Hughes
I haven't used such language. //
I did not say that you did - which is why I asked the question.
// You introduced it into the debate.//
I am aware of that.
//Friendly fire and collateral damage were words you first used and asked if I used them. You got my answer. //
I am aware of your answer - thank you.
I haven't used such language. //
I did not say that you did - which is why I asked the question.
// You introduced it into the debate.//
I am aware of that.
//Friendly fire and collateral damage were words you first used and asked if I used them. You got my answer. //
I am aware of your answer - thank you.
Latest Posts
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.