nuclear weapons
 

do you think nukes are good? cause i think that nukes should ONLY be used if they need to be like the world war two hiroshima and nagasaki. those wee necessary.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

It's slowed down the eagerness to have war between the major nations. So it is a major stabilizing force in nation politics. I think a nation's ability to say "we have nukes" gives them a deterrent against the use of military force by other nations. On the other hand it severely limits the options of smaller nations to gain territory through military means. Depending on where you live this can be a good or a bad thing.

It's turned terrorism into a more horrifying threat. That can't be helped at this point though.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

i agree... nukes are just waste land and do the same thing a human can do... kill people. unless if there was an emergency, then i think nukes should be used

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I used the "only if necessary " option. The question was amusingly phrased - as were the answers. For example, the middle choice - "they should be used in only necessary conflicts." . The fact that the word "necessary" was used means that in that particular war it is necessary to have the ability to nuke. It is also written such that the reader can easily assume it is for his country (the nature of necessity) and therefore may justify the use of a nuclear weapon abroad more easily.

But I know what you mean. I think (and hope) nuclear weapons are redundant, but I would rather have them and waste some public money than not have them and get turned into dust.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I think the stability nuclear weapons provide do not outweigh the risks involved.
Giving a few people the ability to end the life of millions doesn't seem like a good idea, especially if most of those people have a military background and/or irrational fear of communism/capitalism which makes them prone to accept atrocities to reach a result they think is good.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

nah I think it's horrible high yeild nukes could lay waste to all of the earth, that and Nuclear winter and then Nuclear summer...which some think can only happen if we use shit loads of nukes...but I wouldn't take the risk with nukes...unless it's low-yeild which still make a pretty bang..but ending lives isn't really a good think who'd wanna have millions of people blood on there hands?

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Even if you were to say the fact that some people have nukes makes the world more stable and keeps conflicts in check (which is highly arguable anyway), that's not about the actual usage of nukes.
I don't think they should be used. Ever. There is no military target that would require a nuke to effectively neutralize, and civilians should never be (and should never have been) the target. Especially the lasting radiation damage that spreads over a huge area is devastating, and will cause damage to innocents pretty much anywhere in the world.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I honestly think that the world would be more peacefull if we gave every nation in the world a nuclear missile. If people knew that no matter the outcome of the war they would be nuked it wouldn't start. If you are winning to much the other nukes you (What do they have to lose), if you lose to much you get nuked (You have nothing to lose, nuke them, then they nuke you).

The only reasonable way to see global peace is ironicly with our most powerfull and deadly weapons.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I think that its nessecary to keep them around. Nukes should be the last measure. They cause way too much damage to everything to be used as a matter of course, so much destruction from one action.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Nukes are great for detering invasions and suchlike. However, they should on no account be used. So we have a small problem - can't live with them, can't live without them. I would say getting rid of most of them and putting the rest under international control would solve the problem, but I run the risk of being buried under an avalanche of "the UN suxorz" comments.