Nuke em?

[noobsaibot]

Given all the recent hullabaloo surrounding Nuclear weapons developement I thought it would be interesting to get a general sense of what people think about Nuclear Weapons themselves.

 

[TooCurious]

I didn't vote, because I don't think my opinion is categorical enough to warrant a category.

I think my opinion essentially comes down to this: I do not trust my fellow humans enough to use nuclear weapons in a responsible manner (if there is a "responsible manner" in which to use them, and of this I'm not sure either way).

I have another, more visceral, objection to nuclear weapons as well. It's one thing for humans to run around killing each other off in truly staggering numbers--we've been doing that for a while now. However, it's an entirely different matter, and worse on a whole different level, to employ weapons that have such drastically detrimental and long-term effects on all life in a given environment. That's just irresponsible.

It is kind of nice to have nuclear weapons around just in case an asteroid starts invading our planet's personal space, though.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Nuclear weapons are just weapons. Granted they have a damaging residual effect anf the effect of radiation is pretty horrific but they are still just weapons.
Ten thousand people killed by conventional bombing is no different from ten thousand people killed by a single bomb. Certainly not to those killed.

The use of a nuclear bomb on civilian targets is no more or less ethical than conventional weapon attacks on civilian targets. I don't favour either.

I don't think it's safe for any country to have nukes but that genie is well out of the bottle. As insane as M.A.D sounds, it has it's merit.

I can't imagine a situation in which I would condone the use of suc wepoans but I do not discount the possibility that such a situation may arise.

 

[noobsaibot]

It is kind of nice to have nuclear weapons around just in case an asteroid starts invading our planet's personal space, though.

Hmm...I hadn't considered that opinion. I guess I was primarily concerned with the use of WMD's in a wartime setting.

I personally voted that their most ethical use would be as a deterrent. That would mean the threat of using nuclear weapons against another country could be used to: keep them from using their own, keep them from invading our country, or keep them from invading an ally (such as Taiwan). I think and I would hope the United States would never use them to threaten another country into submission, or to extort resources from weaker nations.

On the other hand there are those nations that wouldn't have the same ethical qualms about using nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors to surrender and submit to their government's authority. In such a case it might come to a show-down. The question then becomes "If they call our bluff, do we throw down?"

 

[justanobserver]

I picked "other". It would be a nice dream that they never existed but they do and I doubt they will go away in my life time. But I voted other due to leaning towards several of the other options.

To destroy military targets, fleets, armies, bases, etc:

If they ever had to be deployed/used, I can see the purpose for the tactical nuke - a smaller minimal yeild device. The original concept was based on a major war in Europe against the massive armies of the former USSR/Warsaw Pact as they would cross into then West Germany. The tactical nukes would be used to stop the armored divisions that greatly outnumbered the NATO forces at that time. But one big problem with the planners back then was the pipe dream of containing the useage of nukes to the battlefield and not expand to the cities. The same problem with containment exists today (or at least until I got out in Dec 00)

As a deterrent...realizing some nations might call your bluff:

MADD - we may never know if that was/is the strategy that kept others from launching at us due to the reprisal factor but I would like to assume that it works.

Only as a last resort; to prevent an enemy from taking over your country:


I can see the use of field tactical nukes against an invading army but again, no guarantees/assurances that it would be contained to the battlefield only.

even if another country did invade and took over the country, if we are still alive and not turned into a glass parking lot, there would still be hope.

but of course all this is just fanciful conjecture from a former grunt who hates nukes, bugs and gas. .

 

[Spinrad]

Let em fly. Humans suck.

 

[Ave Maria]

They are not ethical under any circumstances in my opinion. I would not even consider them to be ethical if they were used on some totally inanimate structure out in the middle of a desert where there were no humans for hundreds or thousands of miles! The reason? The radiation travels. It can cause damaging effects around the entire globe!

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=weapons&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[JustJack!]

Smaller tactical nukes I can understand, and if my country were facing certain destruction by an invading force, I would sure as hope we use them.

But a 60 megaton nuke has no purpose other than to obliterate the world.

 

[Crusader05]

I firmly believe that nuclear weapons are inheritantly evil because of the indiscriminat effects they produce.

Dropping a conventional bomb on a target, such as a laser or GPS guided munition, produces a relatively controlled effect. We know what kind of damage a 2,000 lbs JDAM is going to do against a building for instance. We can talior the amount of force applied to the effect we wish to create. This is all apart of the Laws of Armed Conflicts (a series of trieties and conventions that the US and most nations have agreed to follow). Principles of LOAC include Military Necessity; applying enough force to achieve a valid military objective. Distiction, distinguishing between military and civilian targets. And Humanity; avoiding uncessesary human suffering.

The US uses these principles in warfighting and has tailored our weapons and tactics to these constraits. Nuclear weapons violate all of these principles I describes above. Their indiscriminate effects do not make distinctions between civilians of military targets. They expell tremendous amounts of radiation into the atmosphere which create far-reaching effects, which do respect national boarders. The effects on the environment is massive; the land, water and air is polluted and kills human and animal life.

The use of so-called 'tactical nukes; or 'bunker-buster nukes' (RNEP) is downright foolish. Using nukes on the battlefield will create a tremendously hostile environment for our forces and result in our troops suffering from radiation exposure. A bunker-busting nuke has been universally assessed to be useless in being any better at penetrating the earth than any other bomb. When the nuke detonates it is surprisingly bad at actually moving dirt.

War is hell, but using nuclear weapons would literally create hell on earth for innocent civilians. We should never use them, especially while we maintain such an advantage over every other military in conventional weapons.

Check out this link
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

 

[PastorMikeJ]

I really believe that all nations that have Nuc. weapons aught to drop them on each other...

 

[ACougar]

The only possible justified use of a nuclear weapon is to prevent anothers nuclear weapon from being used against you.