Nuclear War: Pros and Cons.

[Arthur Brain]

Hmm, can't actually think of any pros and yet some elements here think that sending nukes into the Middle East is somehow a viable solution to ending any militant Islamist terrorist threat to the West.

How many people here think it's as insane an 'option' as volunteering to go to a guillotine for a haircut? Not only would there be a mass murder of civilian people in any region targeted it would result in automatic reprisals resulting in mass slaughter in turn if not flat out global war.

Also, how would it be any less an act of extremist terrorism to launch such an attack even if there wasn't the threat of reprisal?

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Rusha]

Hmm, can't actually think of any pros and yet some elements here think that sending nukes into the Middle East is somehow a viable solution to ending any militant Islamist terrorism to the West.

For anyone who is truly anti-abortion/prolife, this is not an option.

How many people here think it's as insane an 'option' as volunteering to go to a guillotine for a haircut? Not only would there be a mass murder of civilian people in any region targeted it would result in automatic reprisals in turn resulting in mass slaughter in turn if not flat out global war.

Also, how would it be any less an act of extremist terrorism to launch such an attack even if there wasn't the threat of reprisal?

Thoughts anyone?

Quite simple. I care too much about those who are innocent (unborn babies, babies and children) to advocate that we kill them via nuclear war.

Great topic, BTW.

 

[Lon]

If it saved more lives than it destroyed and was the only way, perhaps. "Nuke 'em" might just be an exaggerated sentiment. Maybe better: "If you had the button, would you push it?" Not but as a last resort and with a lot of praying :nono: I wouldn't 'want' to be in that position. Maybe that'd be the next question: "Would you want to be in that position?" :nono:

 

[Arthur Brain]

For anyone who is truly anti-abortion/prolife, this is not an option.

Ah, no. As Nick M explained in an adjoining thread he's anti abortion not pro-life, meaning it's utterly evil for a woman to choose to abort but if her and her unborn child die in the debris of a mushroom cloud then it's altogether different, because that would be 'war' apparently.

Quite simple. I care too much about those who are innocent (unborn babies, babies and children) to advocate that we kill them via nuclear war.

Great topic, BTW.

Simple and to the point also.

:e4e:

 

[Rusha]

Ah, no. As Nick M explained in an adjoining thread he's anti abortion not pro-life, meaning it's utterly evil for a woman to choose to abort but if her and her unborn child die in the debris of a mushroom cloud then it's altogether different, because that would be 'war' apparently.

Not hardly. KNOWING that casualties would include many pregnant women and children is making excuses as to why their deaths are of no importance.

Pro-abortion advocates make excuses all the time. The lives of the unborn are either valuable and should be protected or they are not. Selective morality says it is okay to intentionally kill *some* unborn babies and children based on circumstances.

 

[zoo22]

I hope no nukes go off, but I kind of assume if they do, it will be religionists who did it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If it saved more lives than it destroyed and was the only way, perhaps. "Nuke 'em" might just be an exaggerated sentiment. Maybe better: "If you had the button, would you push it?" Not but as a last resort and with a lot of praying :nono: I wouldn't 'want' to be in that position. Maybe that'd be the next question: "Would you want to be in that position?" :nono:

How would instigating a nuclear war save more lives than it destroyed? Also, in regards to Nick M & others it's not exaggeration either.

I doubt anyone would want to be in that position and I certainly couldn't press it as it would quite literally be M.A.D.

 

[Town Heretic]

I hope no nukes go off, but I kind of assume if they do, it will be religionists who did it.

I hope so too, but given most people are of a religion it stands to reason that they'll likely be the one to do it if its done. Doesn't really necessarily speak to a problem with faith, only zealots. Stalin and Mao were easy butchering millions...so maybe the truly controlling factor will be that, however ideologically wrapped.

How would instigating a nuclear war save more lives than it destroyed?

Isn't that the argument for our dropping them on the Empire of Japan? So it's theoretically possible, or arguable, but in this instance and most it's hard to justify, especially considering the fluidity of our enemies, even without a serious moral examination.

 

[aikido7]

Hmm, can't actually think of any pros and yet some elements here think that sending nukes into the Middle East is somehow a viable solution to ending any militant Islamist terrorist threat to the West.

How many people here think it's as insane an 'option' as volunteering to go to a guillotine for a haircut? Not only would there be a mass murder of civilian people in any region targeted it would result in automatic reprisals resulting in mass slaughter in turn if not flat out global war.

Also, how would it be any less an act of extremist terrorism to launch such an attack even if there wasn't the threat of reprisal?

Thoughts anyone?

I agree.

It would have us all sitting around and watching each others' hair, teeth and skin fall out and see us all vomit bloody radiation-infused blood.

 

[patrick jane]

nuclear or not, Christians worldwide need to protect other Christians and the free world from terror, totalitarianism, etc. and protect basic human rights. it's a fine line, in "world" opinion; and 'jihad" material for extremists, but we have to start getting serious with these evil doers.


maybe the only thing they will "understand" is "a really big" bomb. the problem is, they aren't all in one place. i just find it difficult to understand, with all the military and technological "superiority" we have, these large groups can operate, murder and destroy with seeming impunity. recording their videos.

why aren't nations and armies engaging them and destroying THEM, right now. i know the good guys are doing things, and there are many variables, but in the meantime. i know i'm making huge generalizations, but i'm tired of seeing and hearing about these freaks, isilis (they don't deserve a name), they only think they're important - atrol:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not hardly. KNOWING that casualties would include many pregnant women and children is making excuses as to why their deaths are of no importance.

Pro-abortion advocates make excuses all the time. The lives of the unborn are either valuable and should be protected or they are not. Selective morality says it is okay to intentionally kill *some* unborn babies and children based on circumstances.

That's the convenient "war" excuse for you, it covers up all manner of atrocities on the surface, but not overall else the death camps and subsequent trials and convictions wouldn't have taken place, much like '"ethnic cleansing" and reverberations etc. It's appalling.

How anyone can advocate nuclear strikes and claim to be either remotely sensible or caring a whit for life is anathema.

 

[Lon]

How would instigating a nuclear war save more lives than it destroyed?

Stopping another from pushing it first...stopping an entity from invading...etc. I wouldn't rule it out. I'm, just saying barring that, if possible, I couldn't support that. Town covered this rather well. I've nothing really to add.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Isn't that the argument for our dropping them on the Empire of Japan? So it's theoretically possible, or arguable, but in this instance and most it's hard to justify, especially considering the fluidity of our enemies, even without a serious moral examination.

Was there really any need to drop two nukes on Japan and where civilians were heavy casualties? It's horrific to see the documentaries of such carnage and suffering that occurred through it and if a display of superior military power was in order then it went beyond that, at least on a moral level I'd certainly argue.

Nowadays nukes are far more potent than then and even without the given reprisals what end has been brought? The extermination of hundreds of thousands of lives? The legacy that goes with atomic warfare? Birth defects, the contamination/irradiation of soil and crops?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Stopping another from pushing it first...stopping an entity from invading...etc. I wouldn't rule it out. I'm, just saying barring that, if possible, I couldn't support that. Town covered this rather well. I've nothing really to add.

Except nobody "wins" a nuclear war. That's why so far (and it's come close - Cuban Missile Crisis - Arms Race) it's not happened, because all "sides" know it's effectively M.A.D. It wouldn't really matter who pressed the button first as there'd be nothing left once the 'dust settled'...

 

[Lon]

Except nobody "wins" a nuclear war. That's why so far (and it's come close - Cuban Missile Crisis - Arms Race) it's not happened, because all "sides" know it's effectively M.A.D. It wouldn't really matter who pressed the button first as there'd be nothing left once the 'dust settled'...

Was there really any need to drop two nukes on Japan and where civilians were heavy casualties? It's horrific to see the documentaries of such carnage and suffering that occurred through it and if a display of superior military power was in order then it went beyond that, at least on a moral level I'd certainly argue.

In retrospect, this much is clear and it and else set precedence for even considering the question.

 

[Tambora]

Tunes will change when they start nuking us.

 

[elohiym]

No nukes.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In retrospect, this much is clear and it and else set precedence for even considering the question.

So you agree that nuclear war is essentially M.A.D.?

 

[zoo22]

I hope so too, but given most people are of a religion it stands to reason that they'll likely be the one to do it if its done. Doesn't really necessarily speak to a problem with faith, only zealots.

Religious zealots speak to problems of faith.

Stalin and Mao were easy butchering millions...so maybe the truly controlling factor will be that, however ideologically wrapped.

Oh, you must have misread my post and thought I was speculating about the past.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Tunes will change when they start nuking us.

"Us"? Who's "us" the 'USA'? Do you honestly think that you could launch a first strike nuclear offensive and not get one in turn? Are you that simplistically minded on the subject that you think you can just send a coupla nukes towards the Middle East and there wouldn't be any repercussions?

You wanna try watching "Threads" and see just how horrific the ramifications of any nuclear exchange would actually be.