Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Hiroshima Bomb watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    Wouldn't mind seeing some decent references for that claim there. Besides, in the case of a decent sized asteroid, we'd all be bricked anyway. You shoot nukes at it, al you're doing is breaking a big asteroid into slightly smaller chunks that will still kick our collective ass.
    That's certainly a possibility (including the embedding of nuclear bombs within the asteroid itself); however, the main argument seems to suggest that a nuclear bomb would be detonated in close proximity to the asteroid. There's plenty of resources around the internet, I am sure you can discover them for yourself. The plain fact is, the nuclear bomb is certainly an option for asteroid deflection, an example of non-violent utilisation.

    Nuclear weapons exist for the sole reason to kill and destroy.
    The latter is not necessarily something negative, as demonstrated above.

    Trying to validate the existence of nuclear weapons by pointing out the non-combat uses is a weak and naive standpoint.
    You've yet to truly refute how that argument is 'weak' and 'naive', thus I found it hypocritical how you have the tenacity to heckle me for handing out insults. I don't see why all nuclear weapons should be abolished, when scientists recognise that they would be our likely defense against asteroid collisions, which are being predicted.

    Also, I never said that their non-violent usage should be the sole reason for retaining them, I just wished to point out the fact that people are disregarding this. If all nations decided to abolish nuclear weapons for military purposes, then I don't see why an international organisation like the UN couldn't have a small stockpile of confiscated bombs for scientific study and and a 'in case of' scenario.

    That's all I wanted to say, I shall quit this thread now for fear of repeating myself/getting into a tiresome flame war.
    I won't expect a reply, then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I was in Hiroshima about 5 days ago, quite sad in the peace park looking at the atomic bomb dome.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nukes have saved more lives than they've taken. I'm incredibly glad that they exist, and hope we as a nation always keep our independent nuclear deterrent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RexRegina)
    That's certainly a possibility (including the embedding of nuclear bombs within the asteroid itself); however, the main argument seems to suggest that a nuclear bomb would be detonated in close proximity to the asteroid. There's plenty of resources around the internet, I am sure you can discover them for yourself. The plain fact is, the nuclear bomb is certainly an option for asteroid deflection, an example of non-violent utilisation.
    we haven't agreed so far but i'll agree with u on this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actually you might just have me here OP
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alan_Johnson)
    The technology would still be there to build a bomb to retaliate if need be. at the same time if a rogue nation is going to attack it will regardless.
    So, people who have been vaporised by a nuclear attack, with many of their facilities/resources destroyed would be able to build their own nuclear weapons? :confused:

    You have a valid point. If a rogue nation decides it wishes to destroy the capital city of country 'x', they will find a method, whether it is a nuclear weapon or not. Thus, it might be more prudent to focus on the people behind the weapons, rather than the weapons themselves. Like I mentioned in my other post, I don't see why a trusted international organisation like the UN couldn't keep a small stockpile of confiscated nuclear weapons for scientific research and in case of a 'just in case' scenario, if/when nuclear weapons are abolished throughout the world. I believe it's a case of: nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

    Worldwide nuclear disarmament is also quite pointless, when tin-pot dictators are running unstable, dangerous countries. I can imagine if the USA abolished its nuclear stockpile, someone like Ahmadinejad would probably concoct conspiracy theories that America have a secret stockpile hidden away.

    Until the time comes when all countries can guarantee that they will happily abolish their nuclear stockpiles, Britain should not undermine such a significant deterrent.

    All the time there are nuclear weapons that are armed there is a possibility that one will go off by mistake.
    Accidents occur all the time, you can't just abolish things because they might break or cause an accident.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    eight quid to join cnd? get outta here
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    eight quid to join cnd? get outta here
    thats why i mentioned the facebook
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RexRegina)
    So, people who have been vaporised by a nuclear attack, with many of their facilities/resources destroyed would be able to build their own nuclear weapons? :confused:

    You have a valid point. If a rogue nation decides it wishes to destroy the capital city of country 'x', they will find a method, whether it is a nuclear weapon or not. Thus, it might be more prudent to focus on the people behind the weapons, rather than the weapons themselves. Like I mentioned in my other post, I don't see why a trusted international organisation like the UN couldn't keep a small stockpile of confiscated nuclear weapons for scientific research and in case of a 'just in case' scenario, if/when nuclear weapons are abolished throughout the world. I believe it's a case of: nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
    this would be a good step
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The nukes dropped on Japan were peaceful nukes.

    Peace and War are like Good and Evil. One can`t exist without the other.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    joined (the facebook page... can't be arsed with cards at this hour)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    The nukes dropped on Japan were peaceful nukes.
    That doesn't make sense...:confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adsy)
    That doesn't make sense...:confused:
    Peacemakers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you don't like nukes you're a goddamn hippy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    umm... about this bomb... is an atomic bomb different from a nuclear???

    this is the biggest bomb in the world.... EPIC! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XZPudwIS3k
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FAILINGKID)
    umm... about this bomb... is an atomic bomb different from a nuclear???

    this is the biggest bomb in the world.... EPIC! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XZPudwIS3k
    :facepalm2: - Not exactly the most reasonable response

    I don't see the need for the UK personally to have any kind of weapon system anymore.

    This new century's threat isn't established nations. Iran and North Korea can develop whatever they like, they know that a strike on a NATO country has to be responded to by a coalition force. They would get wiped out.

    The threat is from smaller rogue groups, such as Al Quaeda, getting their hands on them. Seeing as they have no territory in which to protect, and that they consider those who die in a possible response to be martyrs, means that any kind of response threat is meaningless.

    For the record, Hiroshima may well have saved lives in a numerical sense, but the sheer civilian impact it had was totally un called for and, I believe, up there with cases of genocide for the saddest moment in human history. I can only hope it serves as a reminder as to the extent of wanton destruction a group can unleash on another, and so is never used again.

    Nagasaki was totally ludicrous and, imo, in no way justrified. Truman had itchy fingers, 3 days was no where near enough time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    It's about reflecting on what humanity is capable of and remembering the devastating and perverse power that we hold. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan could very well be the prelude to our own deaths, or the destruction of humanity as we recognise it.
    and theres more than a few people who would argue thats not a bad thing
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adsy)
    That doesn't make sense...:confused:
    peacemaker nukes

    peace through power and strength (and if everyone else is dead oh well)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I completely respect those that died, and i give just as much effort for mourning for victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki disaster as I do with other terrible disasters. What people need to realise though is that the dropping of the A-bomb was the lesser of two evils. The war would have continued and thousands if not millions more would have suffered and perished, both innocent civilians and solider alike.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    :facepalm2: - Not exactly the most reasonable response

    I don't see the need for the UK personally to have any kind of weapon system anymore.

    This new century's threat isn't established nations. Iran and North Korea can develop whatever they like, they know that a strike on a NATO country has to be responded to by a coalition force. They would get wiped out.

    The threat is from smaller rogue groups, such as Al Quaeda, getting their hands on them. Seeing as they have no territory in which to protect, and that they consider those who die in a possible response to be martyrs, means that any kind of response threat is meaningless.

    For the record, Hiroshima may well have saved lives in a numerical sense, but the sheer civilian impact it had was totally un called for and, I believe, up there with cases of genocide for the saddest moment in human history. I can only hope it serves as a reminder as to the extent of wanton destruction a group can unleash on another, and so is never used again.

    Nagasaki was totally ludicrous and, imo, in no way justrified. Truman had itchy fingers, 3 days was no where near enough time.
    how did hiroshima save lives... i mean 66k died O.O right? umm i know my response wasn't reasonable but that russian bomb was a test... i am deeply saddened by the hiroshima deaths... but they are in a much better place now :cool:
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.