Nuclear Death? or Conventional Death?

[Chewbacca]

Perhaps you have touched on the very morality of modern warfare itself in your question. Isn't the wonton killing of infantry with stupid devices like cluster bombs just as irrehensible as dropping nuke on them. Aren't both equally bad? Sure you kill more at once with a nuke, and those that dont die right away will suffer from radiation and burns. But I'd rather die by being vaporized instantaneously than by 100's of tiny hot shards of metal penetrating all over my body simultaneously. Bombing just sucks.

And some conventional bombs have lasting effest as well. The country of Laos estimates around 18,000 people have died and many more injured and maimed from the end of the Vietnam war to 2000 because of cluster bombs dropped by the United States during its "Secret" war there. Many of the causualties are children, who are naturally curious about the baseball sized "Bombies" that litter 80% of the country. These Bombies are like small grenades, and a full cluster bomb releases several hundred of them. The estimated number of Bombies still littering Laos is in the 10's of millions. Public television aired a 2hr special on the long going crisis in Laos. One of the saddest facts they revealed is that the U.S. goverment has never publicly taken responsibilty or offered reparations to Loas, even now almost 30 years after the end of the war.

[Scholarcs]

I am opposed to nuclear weapons because they poison the area around them. When they explode people die from things they cant see. I know how bad that is to have no idea whether you are recieving a lethal dose of radiation or are perfectly safe. You cannot tell. The constant fear when you are tested by a Geiger counter, perhaps it will tell you that you are likely to die soon? All because of someone on the other side of the world hitting a button. It is not only bad for humans it is bad for the environment. The area around chernobyl is still too poisonous for human habitation (for about 100miles in either direction).

So I am against nuclear. I see no reason for them to be used.

[Rikard_OHF]

The main problem morally seen is that it's easier to aim a conventional bomb then it is a atom bomb. In other words, when you use a nuke, you are sure innocents are gonna die, if you use conventional bomb (excluding mass destruction weapons like firestroms) you aim for one target
Still it doesn't matter that much since you'll kill innocents one way or another
And furthermore
Even if you could make a bomb that won't leave radioactive waste (which I think is impossible if you use Uranium) The feel is still there, nomatter what you do, Nuclear will always be seen as Mass destroction of innocents

[Scholarcs]

There used to be beautiful pacific islands and atolls in the ocean. But since the

BLOODY FRENCH

have tested their weapons there you cant go there. Mixed in with the sand and soil is the radioactive ash. The coconuts which look completely normal have absorbed large amounts of radioactive cesium salts, which were spread over a wide area after the atmospheric "testing". Whats more, the entire rock base is now unstable due to underground testing as well.

If NZ ever gets nuclear weapons I hope we test them on the bloody pyranees, the Somme and le midi.

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Scholarcs ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:
Well, let's see firestorms may have killed people slower in the first blast area, but look at the long term effects, you cannot totally eliminate the long terms, at least not as yet, and just look what it did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, people still these days are born with cancer or other illnesses/ deformities due to the pollution left by the bombs, there have been hundreds of horrific accounts of the piles of bodies still nbarely alive, affected by radiation, and people with skin peeled off etc.
All because Nuclear bombs were used before more extensive knowledge of the effects were known.

---

Ive done some research on this, apparently Nagasaki and Hiroshima each have accounted for roughly 65,000 deaths or disfigurements or illnesses (these are rough numbers) only 35000-45000 were due to the initial blast in each case. The dresden firestorm was estimated to have killed roughly 100,000 people. The Tokyo firestorm is estimated to have been worse but I havent found any reliable figures, the ones I have found vary wildly. (I would also like to comment that there are wild variances in the estimates for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it would appear that the rabid anti-nuke types inflate the numbers and the rabid pro-nuke types under estimate them..so Im working with what I consider a uhh "happy" medium)

Good points all [img]smile.gif[/img] I have seen the movies suggested and some sensitive military films as well, I also had to complete the course "Principles of Guided Missiles and Nuclear Weapons" while I was in the Navy. Believe it or not, the radiation effects of weapons do not have to be as great as they are. There will always be some residual radiation but it doesnt have to be of the 250,000 year variety. Avoiding materials like Cobalt can reduce the fall out dramaticly as can varying where the detonation occurs, a near surface burst being the worst since it sucks up more material into the fireball. (Just some factoids there not arguing with anyones post)

I found that bit o tid about 9.9 megatons quite interesting, none of the courses I took ar books I read bothered to mention that lil fact.

I suppose if you used a deep penetration type device then the excess megatonnage might be more useful. Ahhh well [img]smile.gif[/img] thank you all for the input [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Azred]

As far as the movies are concerned, my only complaint about "Fat Man and Little Boy" is that no one died during Project: Manhattan. No one.

As stated earlier, there is no moral difference between nuclear or conventional weaponry. A bomb is a bomb. However, the really big nuclear weapons should be only a low concern. The more worrisome threat will come from groups or nations who decide to use "backpack" or "suitcase" nuclear weapons: put it in the trunk, drive into the city, set it for 24 hours, then drive away. Poof. I hope it doesn't happen, but it is only a matter of time before it does.

Questions of morality and weaponry are usually misconstrued. The morality is not "which weapon is worse" but "why is that person wanting to use a weapon as an agressor". Defending yourself is your basic human right if someone is attacking you; however, if someone attacks you with fists and you kill them with a gun that is going too far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azred:
Defending yourself is your basic human right if someone is attacking you; however, if someone attacks you with fists and you kill them with a gun that is going too far.

---

Does it matter if you killed your attacker iwth a gun? or your fist? or a knife? I single defensive punch can be lethal. I think the moral blame should go with the attacker and not the defender. If you are attacked and the situation ends with the attacker dead, I believe that it might just serve as a deterent to other would be attackers.

The again I believe a society where most of the population is armed would be a much more polite society too...You wouldn't see nearly so many cases of road rage if the "perps" knew that any of the surrounding cars probably had people who just might take offense and fight back with possibly deadly force.

ahh but then you would have the old west syndrome full of lynch mobs and Ox bow incidents guess humans just can't win [img]smile.gif[/img]

[/)eathKiller]

well I belive in the constant use of Nucklear weaponry for mass destruction, infact i hope they make bigger and better ones so that we can clear out those darned asteroids that people are afraid will rain down on us! Infact I think we need to Nuke jupiter! it poses a threat and will serve as a nice second sun! WAAARRAHHAHARAHRHAAR!!

[Sir Kenyth]

Because you have to draw a line somewhere. If using one is okay then maybe using more than one is okay. Nuk weapons are also a long lasting Bio hazard. Fission is dirty, period. The environment simply isn't designed to withstand that type of poison.