• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Nuclear Bombs Are Fun! Do you think?

What do you think of nuking countries

  • Yes! Nuke em! Its nice, quick, clean and gets things done

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • No! Don't nuke em! It destroys the enviorment and kills too many innocents

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • Maybe nuke em only as a last resort

    Votes: 10 40.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So what do you think about bombing countries with nukes? Is it an efficent way to solve problems despite moral repruccusions?
 
Last edited:

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It sucks and only brainless maniacs would follow such a course.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes,nuclear assault is always wrong. But, I can see the wisdom in dropping it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. IMO, Nuclear war is inevitable. It is simply a matter of time. Tick tock. Tick tock.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What moral repercussions?

Assuming we had a reason to go to war with them, where's the morality in risking the lives of our servicemen when we can sterilize the place without risking them?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well depending on your feelings towards muslims I suppose you could either give a **** about killing them or not but as I believe that no people should be judged soley on their race or religious beliefs I think that it would be morally wrong to nuke them. Its true that some military people might be saved but in the end whats worse? Losing soldiers or obliterating the middle east?
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I voted:
"Maybe nuke em only as a last resort"

This is a useless topic. Just the fact no country in the world has ever used a Nuclear bomb. The bombs droped during WWII were atomic, which is a big difference. Then their is the all powerful Hydrogen Bomb, which has double the impact of a Atomic bomb. But either way it doesn't matter, because it the US were the only coutry known to have droped a high impact bomb. Since WWII it is illegal for any country use use one as a weapon, they can only use them for a counter-attack, or just a show of sheer force, to put fear in other countries that want to mess with the US.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Yes,nuclear assault is always wrong. But, I can see the wisdom in dropping it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. IMO, Nuclear war is inevitable. It is simply a matter of time. Tick tock. Tick tock.
You got that right so why wait? I love a quick painless death. It sure beats being beheaded.

Besides all the allah lovers will be ecstatic casue they love to rush their death. They beleive they get 80virgins when they die. And the women may not want this becasue I dont know what allah gives the women. O Iknow they are the ones who become the concubines. :lol:

Yeah just nuke em. Its all good. Besides, its alot cheaper too and we wont have to do no reconstruction cause that area of the world will be inhabitable for about 10000yrs. Not to mention the terrorist threat would be gone totally. Becasue thats where funding comes from and the desire. You sever that there goes the desire and the will and the people to carry it out casue they would mostly be dead. So problem solved now lets move on to nuke N Korea.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its true that some military people might be saved but in the end whats worse? Losing soldiers or obliterating the middle east?
I do agree with you on most of your post but IMO its the soldiers. Not becasue I am one but because they are noble in that they are risking their lives, time, resources, and everything they basically know to not free themselves or another greed attribute but to save a nation across the world.

To me thats a life worth saving.

Muslims on the other hand there are alot who would never do that and who actually hate america and most of the world. So I wouldnt be as sad if they were gone. I am being honest.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
i'd think that a majority of the people in this country including conservatives would be so against that, that the poeple who issued the order would prob be sentenced to death. Secondly, the whole world would hate us. Thirdly, I'd say that if that happens, we'd pretty much ensure our own demise if not the world's.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
but in the end whats worse? Losing soldiers or obliterating the middle east?
Losing a single AMERICAN soldier is a far greater crime than de-populating the entire middle east.

I know who my friends are.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
stsburns said:
This is a useless topic. Just the fact no country in the world has ever used a Nuclear bomb. The bombs droped during WWII were atomic, which is a big difference. Then their is the all powerful Hydrogen Bomb, which has double the impact of a Atomic bomb.
I've always been confused about that. So tell us, what IS the difference between a "nuclear" bomb and an "atomic" bomb?
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Losing a single AMERICAN soldier is a far greater crime than de-populating the entire middle east.

I know who my friends are.

HALELUJAH!!! I love you:2wave:
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I've always been confused about that. So tell us, what IS the difference between a "nuclear" bomb and an "atomic" bomb?

Yes there is a difference. The methods in which they use to create fission in an atomic bomb is they use 2 different elemental liquids such as uranium and when they touch it causes a instability(fission) and thats the way that works in a nutshel. Its far more advanced and complicated than that even though it sounds easy. I just wont go over the whole thing cause it would literally take months.

Nuclear bombs are created by using a different more decisive and accurate way of causing fission. What they do is they take one element and they simulate a splitting of that elemental atom which causes fission far more powerful. In this case the lighter the element the more powerful the fission gets. In this case Hydrogen which is the lightest of all elements is used. However, there are nitrogen bombs and Oxygen bombs. But hydrogen is far more powerful. Now the way they increase the level of destruction is by using multiple "chain reactions." Which is basically the simulation of multiple rows of atom spliting which intensifies the blast abd radiation. Hope that helps
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Losing a single AMERICAN soldier is a far greater crime than de-populating the entire middle east.
Why is that? Didn't "God" say in the Bible in Genesis that all men where created equal? What makes an American better than anyone else?
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Why is that? Didn't "God" say in the Bible in Genesis that all men where created equal? What makes an American better than anyone else?
Well it doesnt. And thats not what he said. The question was do you think its better to wipe out alot of ME people, or a few thousand american soldiers. And he decided on the grounds that American soldiers were much more noble, brave, heroic, ungreedy people. And the muslims had a grave problem with radicalism that hasd a tendancy of killing innocents around the world. So he chose accordingly. Its just an opinion thats all. Good arguments can be made either way. Its just an opinion question thats all.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
Yes there is a difference. The methods in which they use to create fission in an atomic bomb is they use 2 different elemental liquids such as uranium and when they touch it causes a instability(fission) and thats the way that works in a nutshel. Its far more advanced and complicated than that even though it sounds easy. I just wont go over the whole thing cause it would literally take months.

Nuclear bombs are created by using a different more decisive and accurate way of causing fission. What they do is they take one element and they simulate a splitting of that elemental atom which causes fission far more powerful. In this case the lighter the element the more powerful the fission gets. In this case Hydrogen which is the lightest of all elements is used. However, there are nitrogen bombs and Oxygen bombs. But hydrogen is far more powerful. Now the way they increase the level of destruction is by using multiple "chain reactions." Which is basically the simulation of multiple rows of atom spliting which intensifies the blast abd radiation. Hope that helps
An atomic bomb is a nuclear bomb as is a hydrogen bomb, in other words there are two main types of nuclear bombs, atomic and hydrogen (There are several types of hydrogen bombs). The atomic bomb is a fission bomb, and the hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb. The hydrogen bomb does use fission, but only as a trigger to ignite the hydrogen (Fusion). Basically a hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb (Fission) to ignite the hydrogen (Fusion). Hydrogen does not fission, it fuses, light nuclei are formed (fused) into heavier ones.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
C.J. said:
An atomic bomb is a nuclear bomb as is a hydrogen bomb, in other words there are two main types of nuclear bombs, atomic and hydrogen (There are several types of hydrogen bombs). The atomic bomb is a fission bomb, and the hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb. The hydrogen bomb does use fission, but only as a trigger to ignite the hydrogen (Fusion). Basically a hydrogen bomb uses an atomic bomb (Fission) to ignite the hydrogen (Fusion). Hydrogen does not fission, it fuses, light nuclei are formed (fused) into heavier ones.
Let me just settle this with a decisive link. That way everyone will be a nuke tech :lol:

Here it is. This is how I learned about nuclear ordinance.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Why is that? Didn't "God" say in the Bible in Genesis that all men where created equal? What makes an American better than anyone else?
Because I'm an American.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh my God! The ignorance is astounding.

There are two general types of nuclear weaponry available. Fission bombs and fusion bombs.

Fission is "splitting".
Fusion is "welding".

"Fission" is the process of splitting a single nucleus into two pieces. The nucleus of the atom contains all the protons in the atom. These are positively charged particles that repel each other when seperated by a distance via electrostatic forces, but which can be bound together in the nucleus via the "strong nuclear force".

This binding takes energy, so the mass of a nucleus is less than the sum of the masses of the combined protons and neutrons (an electrically neutral particle). The energy needed to hold the nucleus together is equivalent to the missing mass, via Einstein's E = MC^2 formula.

Atomic nuclei are not static collections of marbles, but dynamic waves. The largest atoms are not stable and decay radioactively. The uranium atom, and others, can also spontaneously split into two roughly equal halves. Once these halves start to get outside the range of the strong nuclear force, the electrostatic force flings them away. The energy released in this process used to be the energy needed to bind the nucleus together. Also, the splitting isn't perfect and stray neutrons are released.

These are two isotopes of uranium. An isotope of an element has the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. All uranium atoms have 92 protons in their nucleus, while U235 has 143 neutrons and U238 has 146. It turns out that Uranium isotope 235 is more sensitive to neutrons than U238.

It also turns out that U238 is about 200 times more common than U235. To make effective reactors or to make uranium based bombs, it is necessary to refine uranium and "enrich" the U235. Almost all isotopes are chemically identical and the enrichment processes are purely mechanical and difficult. That's why it's been taking Iran forever to get their first bomb. (I'm hoping we give them one of ours first).

Back to bombs. It was discovered a chain reaction of fissions can be created, where one fission creates two or more neutrons that go on to create more fissions in a rapidly multiplying chain that can result in enormous energy release. This chain reaction is the heart of the fission bomb.

A fission bomb, like those donated to Japan, needs only to get enough fissionable material close enough together to start the reaction. The longer the material can held together, and the more material that can be included, will drive the strength of the bomb.

But all you need to know is that fission is effective with heavy elements, and involves reducing those atoms to smaller pieces.

A fusion bomb works the opposite way. You take two light nuclei and jam them together. This will also release energy when the strong nuclear force is able to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei and bind them together. Hydrogen happens to be the easiest element to work with, hence our fusion bombs are also called "hydrogen" bombs.

To create fusion on an industrial scale, it's necessary to heat masses of hydrogen to millions of degrees and yet contain it so the atoms stay close enough to interact. A fission bomb primer charge is used for this.

Two things combine to make fusion bombs more powerful than fission bombs. The first is that fusing hydrogen to make a helium atom release a lot more energy than the fission of a uranium atom.

Then there's a physical limit to how much uranium can be forced together to interact in a chain reaction before the force of the reaction blows the mess apart. The Teller-Ulam configuration of the hydrogen bomb traps the hydrogen in a tamper and there's no theorectical upper limit to the size of a fusion bomb, though moving them becomes difficult.

That's it. Two kinds of nuclear weapons. All other explosives release chemical energy.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
Your a human being first.
I do hope the enemy isn't counting on chance similarity of form to protect them from my wrath.

The liberals always tell us that we shouldn't look at the outside, it's what's inside that counts. So don't be a racist and just kill the enemy when necessary.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So don't be a racist and just kill the enemy when necessary.
Yes but Inocent Arabs are not the enemy.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Yes but Inocent Arabs are not the enemy.
What people have to learn some day is that the rules of war are different.

"Guilt", "innocence" doesn't matter on the battlefield. It's the possible threat that counts.

I like that line in "The Army of Darkness":

"Good. Bad. It doesn't matter. I've got the gun."
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
Folk in the middle east aren't our enemies. terrorists are. learn the difference.
I know the difference. Since those "folk" in the middle east seem perfectly content to tolerate terrorists in their midst, they're the enemy. When they start cleaning out the animals, they'll stop smelling like pigs, and then we might consider letting them into civilized society.
 
Top Bottom