I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to speculate. I'm just after a straight answer to my question.What do you think I was talking about?
Yes it does.inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.
I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to speculate. I'm just after a straight answer to my question.
Yes.
The U.S. and only the U.S. in my opinion.
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.
Only if you'd rather Russia and China didn't conquer the world.
Wtf!!!! The only country to have ever used them, and on a civilian target to boot, gets your vote of legitimacy, I never thought that would make me wish for a god. Jesus Christ, can such freaks really exist?
Hell yes we should have nukes, and not only that, we should be the only ones. And we should continue work to see to it that the least amount of countries have them. All this fairness talk is pure bull****, and liable to get us killed. I'm not afraid to say that I don't care if any other country has a single bullet, as long as we do.
No, my question was in what viable situation would it be legally and morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. I also expect follow-up discussion on any (serious) answer because my whole point is this areas isn't easy or straight forwards (and because this is a discussion forum, not a Q&A).What was your question?
Can the use of any type of nuclear weapon ever be justified?
HYpothetically, how would you enforce that in terms of our allies? Would you actively seek to prevent countries like UK, Canada, France etc getting hold of nukes??
Hypothetically was how I meant my post. The whole question of having a "right" to a nuke is silly actually.
No, my question was in what viable situation would it be legally and morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. I also expect follow-up discussion on any (serious) answer because my whole point is this areas isn't easy or straight forwards (and because this is a discussion forum, not a Q&A).
Does Iran have the right to take the same view of Israel or the USA?I answered seriously ... I said yes and I gave an example that paralleled what's happening now in the M.E.
I general terms, if it's a question of survival.
I don't think so. Such an attack would have killed hundreds of thousands of largely innocent people without guaranteeing the death of Hitler himself (or that it would stop the war). The general concept of assassinating senior political/military leaders raises its own questions but I'm not convinced this is a legitimate method anyway.If we had an operational nuke in the early 40's would it have been legally and morally justifiable to drop it on Hitler's head as he was sweeping through Europe?
Regardless of the munitions I'd question the legality, especially without a declaration of war, and if the attack wasn't by the nation under (perceived) threat. There could be circumstances where it would be justified as a last resort. I do still see an irony in threating a country with nuclear weapons to prevent it threatening a country with nuclear weapons. Kind of like the classic "Don't hit your sister <slap>!".If a Country has continually indicated they intend to destroy a neighbor and are developing a nuclear weapon in reinforced underground facilities, is it legally and morally justifiable to use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy them?
Does Iran have the right to take the same view of Israel or the USA?
I don't think so. Such an attack would have killed hundreds of thousands of largely innocent people without guaranteeing the death of Hitler himself (or that it would stop the war). The general concept of assassinating senior political/military leaders raises its own questions but I'm not convinced this is a legitimate method anyway.
Regardless of the munitions I'd question the legality, especially without a declaration of war, and if the attack wasn't by the nation under (perceived) threat. There could be circumstances where it would be justified as a last resort. I do still see an irony in threating a country with nuclear weapons to prevent it threatening a country with nuclear weapons. Kind of like the classic "Don't hit your sister <slap>!".
Maybe a distinction should be made between tactical and the larger yield city-levelling weapons. The latter is obviously the greater concern.
Iran has that right but it's not what's happening because it's they who are are the protagonists and none of this would be happening otherwise.
As for not ending WWII in Europe before it got too far, it ended WWII in the Pacific and killed a whole lot of largely innocent people.
I'm not talking about the USA nuking Iran. I'm talking about the nation under threat doing it ... and you'd better believe they're under threat.
No, my question was in what viable situation would it be legally and morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. I also expect follow-up discussion on any (serious) answer because my whole point is this areas isn't easy or straight forwards (and because this is a discussion forum, not a Q&A).
But it saved many more "innocent" lives. Had the US invaded the Japanese main Islands, the death toll would of been in the 10s of millions. Imagine the fighting on Okinawa, but more intense, for every foot of the main islands. The Japanese genome and culture may not of survived.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?