• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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 .
Innocent People in the Middle East are the 1st victims of terrorism (not you)But if you think that Muslims are the enemy then how about American Muslims? should they be forced to leave and then be nuked? Why arent they commiting terrorist acts? Are they bad Muslims? Are they waiting? Does it make you feel better about yourself and absolve yourself of any wrongdoings to ignore the reasons why American Goverment is so hated worldwide (not just in the Muslim World) Timothy Mcvey wasnt a Muslim. Nor was the Olympic bomber or the perpetraters of the Anthrax attacks (most likely)but thats okay keep entertaining the idea of killings of millions of innocent people to prove your point. After all you are much different that Osama right?;)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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."

A war is waged against an army fighting another army. Those "innocent" civilians didn't take up arms and enlist in their army, therefore should not be expected to be incinerated along with their families and their cities.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.

Dude, you didnt have to write all that for I provided a link over it. Just let everyone read the link. That way no one has the chance of being ill informed
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.

Bingo this made more logical sense than most posts I have seen on this forum. Keep up th good work Scarecrow
 
KWAM said:
Innocent People in the Middle East are the 1st victims of terrorism (not you)But if you think that Muslims are the enemy then how about American Muslims? should they be forced to leave and then be nuked? Why arent they commiting terrorist acts? Are they bad Muslims? Are they waiting? Does it make you feel better about yourself and absolve yourself of any wrongdoings to ignore the reasons why American Goverment is so hated worldwide (not just in the Muslim World) Timothy Mcvey wasnt a Muslim. Nor was the Olympic bomber or the perpetraters of the Anthrax attacks (most likely)but thats okay keep entertaining the idea of killings of millions of innocent people to prove your point. After all you are much different that Osama right?;)

Well the funny thing is that there are cells here in the US we dont know about so your wrong they will commit acts of terror. But not all will. American giv is not hated because we are powerful. We are hated cause we are a superpower that no one can do anything about which is envy. They envy us which turns into hate. That is a totally different acclamation. And you need to learn a little more about world affairs before you throw your washington post assumptions at me.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Dude, you didnt have to write all that for I provided a link over it. Just let everyone read the link. That way no one has the chance of being ill informed

Meaning no disrespect but I assume you read over the material in the link you provided, and you were ill informed.
 
C.J. said:
Meaning no disrespect but I assume you read over the material in the link you provided, and you were ill informed.

No not really. Just didnt word it very well casue I didnt feel like going into the depth that you did. But I figure what the hell, why not provide a link for all the info I would've typed. It just seemed like common sense at the time. Sometimes when I put things in nutshells I dont do it very well. :lol:
 
FinnMacCool said:
So what do you think about bombing countries with nukes? Is it an efficent way to solve problems despite moral repruccusions?

I think it could embolden terrorists to get their hands on a suticase nuke and set it off in the US, not to mention it could trigger a new nuclear arms race with other countries.
 
TimmyBoy said:
I think it could embolden terrorists to get their hands on a suticase nuke and set it off in the US, not to mention it could trigger a new nuclear arms race with other countries.

Sorry to break it to you but this already happened. So dont worry your worst fears are upon us.
 
kal-el said:
A war is waged against an army fighting another army. Those "innocent" civilians didn't take up arms and enlist in their army, therefore should not be expected to be incinerated along with their families and their cities.

No. A war is waged to deprive one nation of the ability to continue fighting. The resources needed to wage war are industrial capacity, technical ability, supplies and logistics, and manpower.

War legitimately target all aspects, though in this sissified liberalized era of oh-my-god-killing-is-always-bad-unless-it's-an-unborn-baby we seem to be able to only target those things the media approve of, usually only our own men. But in the real world, we bomb factories, even though the janitor is 90 years old and can't shoot at all. We bomb dams and bridges, even though people leave underneath or down-stream. We destroy power generators and water treatment plants. And, in the extreme, we firebomb Tokyo and kill thousands of so-called innocent Japs becuase they're too stupid to give up.

And in the end, when I'm asked to make a choice between the lives of my kids, or the lives of savages living in the 13th century, I know what to do.

Making war ugly for civillians is the best way to make civillians want to stop war.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Dude, you didnt have to write all that for I provided a link over it. Just let everyone read the link. That way no one has the chance of being ill informed

Of course I had to post it. The person that provided the link clearly hadn't read the material he linked to.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. A war is waged to deprive one nation of the ability to continue fighting.

Exactly. As I said, an army or rougue gruop fighting agaist another one.


War legitimately target all aspects, though in this sissified liberalized era of oh-my-god-killing-is-always-bad-unless-it's-an-unborn-baby we seem to be able to only target those things the media approve of, usually only our own men. But in the real world, we bomb factories, even though the janitor is 90 years old and can't shoot at all. We bomb dams and bridges, even though people leave underneath or down-stream. We destroy power generators and water treatment plants. And, in the extreme, we firebomb Tokyo and kill thousands of so-called innocent Japs becuase they're too stupid to give up.

So what are you saying? You say we bombed Tokyo's civilians, dams and bridges,and generators. All this is called "collateral damage". That is the worst possible term. As if we should except loss of human life?

And in the end, when I'm asked to make a choice between the lives of my kids, or the lives of savages living in the 13th century, I know what to do.


No one's imploring you to make that choice.

Making war ugly for civillians is the best way to make civillians want to stop war.

Ok, I see your point there.
 
kal-el said:
So what are you saying? You say we bombed Tokyo's civilians, dams and bridges,and generators. All this is called "collateral damage". That is the worst possible term. As if we should except loss of human life?

When one is faced with a choice, one weighs options. Let's see here...lives of American soldiers...my neighbors, sons of neighbors, young men and women sworn to defend my constitution, as I once swore when I was their age, or the lives of primitive barbarians sworn to kill me or destroy my way of life.

It's not a hard choice, IMO.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When one is faced with a choice, one weighs options. Let's see here...lives of American soldiers...my neighbors, sons of neighbors, young men and women sworn to defend my constitution, as I once swore when I was their age, or the lives of primitive barbarians sworn to kill me or destroy my way of life.

It's not a hard choice, IMO.

Wel you know what scarecrow. No one thinks the way you do. Why would people want to save the lives of good law abiding american citizens or noble soldiers? That would be insane. We obviously got this all wrong. We need to first save the lives of barbarians that have sworn to kill us at all costs even if it kills our noble soldiers in that attempt becasue barbarians are far more worthy to live that innocent american citizens and noble soldiers. :rofl :lol: (sarcasm)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When one is faced with a choice, one weighs options. Let's see here...lives of American soldiers...my neighbors, sons of neighbors, young men and women sworn to defend my constitution, as I once swore when I was their age, or the lives of primitive barbarians sworn to kill me or destroy my way of life.

It's not a hard choice, IMO.

Civilians aren't our enemy here. Thank goodness someone on a distant planet that has the technology to wipe us all out, isn't thinking like you."O well, earhtlings are just primitive barbarians". I guess you're implying we're all just ants, and the earth is nothing but an ant farm?
 
kal-el said:
Civilians aren't our enemy here. Thank goodness someone on a distant planet that has the technology to wipe us all out, isn't thinking like you."O well, earhtlings are just primitive barbarians". I guess you're implying we're all just ants, and the earth is nothing but an ant farm?

No hes implying to save our lives and our way of life. Cmon kalel you shoud understand that. Its not the fact that we care nothing for life and others. Its exactly the opposite in that we want to protect our lives and our way of life. For it is better and we arent barbaric terrorists who like cutting off heads. If you would rather let them strike us becasue you feel they are more worthy to live then why dont you go live there? O but I see. This country is far better isnt it? So why wouldnt you protect it at all costs? Good question isnt it? If you knew without a shadow of a doudbt that nuclear attacks here were just a mattter of time, and you had the means to decisively waiver out that threat wouldnt you take the threat out totally?
 
SKILMATIC said:
No hes implying to save our lives and our way of life. Cmon kalel you shoud understand that. Its not the fact that we care nothing for life and others.

Sure as hell dosen't seem like it.

Its exactly the opposite in that we want to protect our lives and our way of life. For it is better and we arent barbaric terrorists who like cutting off heads. If you would rather let them strike us becasue you feel they are more worthy to live then why dont you go live there? O but I see. This country is far better isnt it? So why wouldnt you protect it at all costs? Good question isnt it? If you knew without a shadow of a doudbt that nuclear attacks here were just a mattter of time, and you had the means to decisively waiver out that threat wouldnt you take the threat out totally?

That threat? Iraq was no nuclear threat buddy. What about the vast list of other countries that own nuclear weapons? And us? Are we the only country that is allowed to have them? As long as someone, it dosen't matter who they are, have nukes, it's just a matter of time till they are used. It might be a month, a year, 10 years, 100 years, who knows?
 
That threat? Iraq was no nuclear threat buddy. What about the vast list of other countries that own nuclear weapons? And us? Are we the only country that is allowed to have them? As long as someone, it dosen't matter who they are, have nukes, it's just a matter of time till they are used. It might be a month, a year, 10 years, 100 years, who knows?

You just nailed it on the forehead buddy. So do you beleive eventualy there will be a nuclear war?
 
SKILMATIC said:
You just nailed it on the forehead buddy. So do you beleive eventualy there will be a nuclear war?

Of course, the question is when though? Numerous countries have them. And yet they all say they have them for "deterrence". Bush is totally for disarmament, for other countries, that is.:2razz:
 
kal-el said:
Of course, the question is when though? Numerous countries have them. And yet they all say they have them for "deterrence". Bush is totally for disarmament, for other countries, that is.:2razz:

Ok well who wants to commit harm against america? Just take a wild guess.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Ok well who wants to commit harm against america? Just take a wild guess.

Well,Bin Laden and al-Qeada of course,but they probably hate the Saudi royal family even more (if that is possible). That's why it was of the utmost importance to capture Bin Laden, but no, Bush was obcessed with going after Saddam.
 
kal-el said:
Well,Bin Laden and al-Qeada of course,but they probably hate the Saudi royal family even more (if that is possible). That's why it was of the utmost importance to capture Bin Laden, but no, Bush was obcessed with going after Saddam.

Well then do you beleive that if sadaam had a nuke that he would use it against us?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well then do you beleive that if sadaam had a nuke that he would use it against us?

I don't think for a second that if Bin Laden had acsses to nukes that he wouldn't take aim at the US.
 
kal-el said:
I don't think for a second that if Bin Laden had acsses to nukes that he wouldn't take aim at the US.


So you would say that he wouldnt try and nuke the US?

Or you would say that he would try to nuke us?
 
Back
Top Bottom