Debate: - M.A.D. and me

PC Mode

Husar 20:04 07-29-2009

Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place?

Yes.

No.

Vladimir 14:08 07-30-2009

Originally Posted by Husar:
No.

So they don't make the world a more dangerous place?

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
First of all; if you do pursue a career that involves nuclear weapons then the security services will read this post.
It doesn't matter if you mostly post from work, or if you mostly use a proxy to post here; if an IP address has EVER been used by you that links here then this site will be part of a background check.
And if they do that then you can guarantee a context sensitive search for words that include; nuclear, politics, weapons, violence, revolution, muslim, bomb, depression, will all be searched, and will instantly find this thread.

You forgot the part about black helicopters.

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
lol.

Agreed. I think Viking is one of them.

Husar 15:07 07-30-2009

Originally Posted by Vladimir:
So they don't make the world a more dangerous place?

I can obviously only answer that once you explained what you meant with 'yes' since given the way the question was formulated that was completely unclear, thus my response.
This might have been your intention of course.

Vladimir 21:19 07-30-2009

Originally Posted by Husar:
I can obviously only answer that once you explained what you meant with 'yes' since given the way the question was formulated that was completely unclear, thus my response.
This might have been your intention of course.

It was a compound question and I couldn't resist. The question also assumes that the two are mutually exclusive, which they aren't. Yes a nuclear deterrent works; Yes, weapons that can irradiate the planet for thousands of years and possibly destroy civilization are more dangerous than conventional arms.

I'm less worried about nuclear weapons, which have such clear long-term consequences, than whatever replaces them. Something like an anti-matter bomb that can rip off the atmosphere but leave no harmful radiation.

So, you answered the question just to be contrarian?

Jolt 22:06 07-30-2009

The major problem with the deterrence issue is really in accepting that the other country will not attack. But what if its bold enough to do so? Than the entire system by which millions were protected falls apart and the other country is forced to respond in a nuclear ping-pong which ultimatly succeeds in bringing in the next dark ages.

Besides that, nuclear proliferation brings the problem of the increase chance that it will fall into the hands of transnational groups which would have little hesitation in using the weapons. What then? Who would be responsible for the killing of millions? Would the attacked country retaliate on another country? Which? Would it attack against the country which unfortunatly let the nukes slip through their fingers? (Innocents would be massacred because of an issue they couldn't do the slightest bit about?) What if the attack was done by separatists (Imagining ETA or IRA dropped a nuke which was conviniently stolen from the USA for instance, in Madrid or London, respectively?), what was to be done then? Nuke the USA? Nuke their own citizens in their own Basque Autonomous Region just to show who's boss?

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO