Nuclear Bombs
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13553
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 09:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Nuclear Bombs
Posted By: Sedat
Subject: Nuclear Bombs
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 04:13
|
Is it the most evil creation made by man to this date? post your opinions ------------- Karadeniz Firtinasi |
Replies:
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 08:27
|
Hmmm...tricky one because the Japanese would not have surrendered easilly, and the principle of MAD has given the world peace ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 12:38
|
Why not gunpowder/guns as a candidate? They have done more killing than bombs of anykind altogether have. ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 13:00
|
or a simple pointy thingy like azword it has no other use only for killing people. the spear and the bow and arrow can be used as hunting "tools" but the sword iq just for killing. an axe can be used for chopping wood but a sword just for killing. there are also alot of other weapons but these are the most common I think
sword
Bow and arrow
Spear
Axe ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 13:20
|
God is man's most evil creation. ------------- |
Posted By: Sedat
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 21:26
|
You mean Man is god's most evil creation?? ------------- Karadeniz Firtinasi |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 21:31
|
No, I don't think that's what Frederick means. And I agree with him. ------------- |
Posted By: Red Russian
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 21:49
|
The Atomic bomb is just something to powerful for its own good. Its so powerful no one but a complete IDIOT! Would ever use one, unless in DIRE need. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Pascali
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 05:38
| In my opinion, biological weapons are the most dangerous ones. Their effect spreads really fast and there is always a chance to get out of control. |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 01:02
|
I dont understand the rankings of weapons in some kind of imaginary ethical system.
A nuke kills, so does a fist.
A civilian and a soldier and both people, their deaths are equally bad or good (depending what side your on).
I myself have no ethical issue with using nukes, chemical weapons, biological agents, pointed sticks, plungers, bolas, or the fuzzy criters of redwall to kill people. If you dont like war dont have it in the first place.
You should try to avoid it, but if necessary to it right, go all out and make sure theres no enemy for a next time. It solves more problems thatn dragging things out like they do now with useless peackeepers that just keep vendettas going.
"It is well war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it"-Robert E Lee. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 02:53
|
I would agree with you there, but if you acutally look at it, powerful weapons actually produce the opposite effect- MAD
They are so powerful, that nobody will ever want to use them
They are so leathal that nobody will ever invade another country because they are afraid of their effects.
In a way, over the past 50 years, Nukes have saved lives as they have rendered large scale war unthinkable ------------- |
Posted By: jher
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 09:49
|
With nuke around, we are like sitting on a time bomb. If the bomb exploded by accident, just too bad. If terrorists got hold of one and drop it on your town ,just too bad. Whether you like it or not, we just hv to face up to our creation and pray. Good luck to everyone. |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 03:24
Even if nukes were used it might cause the collapse of built up establishments and all the corruption that comes with them. A chance to start anew. Anyway there are so many people, their lives are worth so much less. People, like currency are devalued by greater populations. If you want to make human life worth something again youll have to get rid of a whole lot of people!
Am I joking? ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Red Russian
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 10:20
|
Actually as bad as it sounds, Tobodai does have a point... -------------
|
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 11:08
 I agree as well! ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 12:25
And man made god in his image, so it doesn't say much for man either. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 12:47
|
Nukes are really bad, if you're a fan of world wars.
Otherwise ... those who have them are guaranteed sovereignty (and often, peace in their own land) against all aggressors. Not so bad. The other nice thing about nukes is that they are the only major tool of national defence that cannot really be used either for oppression of domestic dissidence or aggression (unless you want to be on the receiving end as well) |
Posted By: Red Russian
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 14:41
Never really veiwed it like that, but it is most certianly a different way of veiwing nukes, not so much as a Killing Device, but as a peace keeping device! -------------
|
Posted By: Straha
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 23:10
| No. Weapons have no intrinstic "morality" its the users of them who do. |
Posted By: BMC21113
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 12:57
|
Nuclear energy, just as all other technologies, can be used to bring evil upon man. The real evil is not the device, but those which control them. Nuclear energy can serve as a useful power source or it can be used to bring unimaginable death and destruction upon man. Of course, there is a wide range of "evil" inventions, though it is those who choose to use them for ill-intentions who hold the real evil. Remember Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein." It was not the monster which was inherently evil, but rather Dr. Frankenstein's decisions to "play God" and the townspeople's refusal to accept that which was different ultimately turned the monster evil. ------------- "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington "The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon |
Posted By: Pharoah Fred
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 16:55
| Nukes can be evil, or good. All depends who has control over them. They are certainly not the most evil thing, as they only have the potential to create mass casualties (And, ultimately, an apocalypse (sp?)), but they have not created as many casualties as the gun, or the sword, or the spear etc. It all depends if or how they are used. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 10:55
|
Yes, but the sheer power of nuclear weaponry makes it so dangerous that it makes one wonder if they should exist in the first place. But if they did not exist, then there would be no long-term deterrent to prevent large scale war ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 11:10
The only bad thing about nukes is that they are not currently being used. Oops did i just say that . With 6 billion and more people on this earth one human life is worth almost completely nothing. Think how infinitesimaly little importance your actions have on this earth. Not to mention the disasterous environmental impact our surging population is having on nature, even if a few nuclear bombs went off our impact would still be worse.------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 18:46
|
The greatest paradox of nukes is that they are capable of destroying
the human race in only a few moments and doing so totally, which
distinguishes them from all previous weaponry. However, the fact they
are so terrible means that no great power has been to war with another
directly since nuclear arsenals first appeared.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 05:32
|
Exactly- although many other problems rage our civilization, full scale mobilization and war between two neighbooring countries (or many countries for that matter) is now not very common. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 15:47
|
Therefore man is most evil, stop blaming god.
So far the observed use has been in war, so they are not a long term deterrent, but usefull for high short term effect.
Nixon had proposed the use of nukes vietnamese during the vietnam war. So deterrent NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
(quicklink: http://archive.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/03/06/nixon/index.html - http://archive.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/03/06/nixon/index.html )
A self consuming fire, yes.
We should have a nuke/bio/chem free world. Any tool of war that effects the environment long after the end of hostilities should be outlawed. Like the landmines. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 05:52
Add religion to that list. It lingers much longer then the tools you listed above. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2007 at 19:30
|
I do not think that nuclear weapons are the most evil creation by man to this present point, although they definitely have that potential in the future, and perhaps the not so distant future.
Maybe the most evil weapon created by man to this point in history would be the creation of dynamite, as it opened a new era in weapons and destruction never before seen by man, and has contributed to the deaths of millions.
Nuclear weapons have not done that, yet.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 08:15
|
I believe atomic bombs was one of the best inventions ever made.
For the first time in history both ambitious dictators (those parasytes like Napoleon, Julius Caesar or Alexander
 ) and esquizophrenic democrats have to give a chance to PEACE. Nuclear bombs have stopped massive wars for now. It is a good deal. Is like God himself have say "Be good kids or perish".
Penguin
|
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 09:56
|
I agree with whoever said that biological weapons are worse (and nerve gasses!!). I don't usually use words like "evil" but they are certainly approaching that. To whoever said nukes can be good and bad, is there a good side aside from the "deterrent" aspect? |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 12:49
And why do you feel that way? Compared to other ideaologies, mankind's conceptualization of God has led to very few deaths. In fact, God tends to limit our worst instincts. Look at our century
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao all had atheistic ideaologies. They killed far more people than Theistic dictators. Then factor in murderers who were only very nominal theists. (Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin). And then factor in WWI in which religion played a very, very minor role.
How many people has religion killed in our century. maybe....
Fundamentalist Islam - severall hundred thousand
Religously based Zionism - Ten thousand, maybe more?
Christian Fundamentalism - A few thousand. (More if you count its support of religous zionism)
Militant Hinduism - ten thousand?
The total for Hindusim and Islam will climb if you add 1948 India-Pakistan casualties. Secular politics also had a factor here though.
Hiter and Stalin did this in a 6 moth period. Ironically, it appears that the Ayatollah Khomeini was statisticaly less inclined to harm people as an Islamic fundamentalist and bound by the rules or fundamentalist Islam that his secular countrerpart in Iraq operating with no rules. Naturally, I would not want either one harming me, but I would rsik being targeted by the religously law bound Ayatollah than the lawless Saddam.
 . |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 14:59
| I agree with you, Cryptic, in many "religious" wars Religion or G-d is just a stand-in for some political or social issue. |