Nuclear war a bad or good thing?

Question

Is it really a bad thing? As if we dont feel the impact of our errors will we ever learn.

Answer 1

As if we did not learn enough by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 2

In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited. And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been. (btw, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes were in the puny 15-20 kiloton range).

There are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the United States and the Russia-- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas.

But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Thus, there are vastly more nuclear weapons than are needed for any plausible deterrence of a potential adversary.

Even small nuclear wars can have devastating climatic effects. A war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. This scenario would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for the Nuclear Winter is very low.

Answer 3

Ben, I feel you. Imagine an inner city riot on but on a global scale. Everyone running around in a world wide smash and grab. That's pretty much the world as it is when you remove this thin veneer of civility. A nuclear exchange may thin the herd enough to allow people to hear voices of reason and common sense. Hiroshima and Nagasaki got the point across clearly that the war was over.

Of course, realistically, that notion is preposterous. I strongly believe the ends does not vindicate the means. Killing to save lives doesn't make sense to me.

Yet, at the same time, the military makes a very good argument when it comes to defending our freedom;

So, is Nuclear war a bad thing? No. War is a bad thing. Nuclear War is much worse.

Answer 4

Well lets see being a veteran myself is Nuclear war a good or bad thing I mean r-u- awake yet have u ever heard of (MAD) Mutually Assured Destruction,that the US &Russia,have in place if either one of them ever fired off there Nuclear weapons at the other its a pretty safe bet know one will be left on this planet and the ones that r would die within a few weeks or days so what errors would we learn well none because there would be no one around to learn from them does that answer ur question on whether Nuclear war is good or bad.

Answer 5

A nuclear war would be a really really bad thing and no sane person disagrees about that.

The disagreement is on whether threatening it is good or bad. If it works as a deterrent and forces nations to settle their disputes without raising the level of violence to one that would prompt a nuclear reaction, then the credible threat of nuclear war is very very good.

Answer 6

nuclear war would be a disaster. there are so many nuclear weapons now a days that a war could destroy the world and if not think about akll of the radiation there would then be in the world. all the disease and death. how would that take away some of the boredome?

Answer 7

There was only one very brief atomic war that ended WWII, and that was more than 60 years ago, so I guess we did learn to avoid using nukes.

It seems universally agreed that nuclear war is a bad thing, and you'll get no argument from me on that matter.

I think anti-nuclear weapons and nonlethal weapons in general are a good idea and developing them should be a higher priority than developing more lethal weapons.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives

Answer 8

Look at Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. These were CIVILIAN nuclear accidents at GROUND LEVEL and they managed to irradiate a significant area. Now imagine a MILITARY grade air burst nuke. Besides the obvious thermal and blast effects the fall out would be far greater.

My vote- Nukes (strategic size) are bad unless you want to end the world. Tactical size.......depends on how and where it is used.

Answer 9

Generally speaking, if you're standing at ground zero, it's really bad. If you're a mile its still really bad and if you're ten miles away it's bad enough to kill you. Because of fallout, if you're downwind up to 20 miles it's immediately really bad as well. Within a couple of days the 'hot' fallout is bad for everyone. People start saying, "This really sucks!" George Bush will then call you an 'America Hater' and order the Homeland Security Gestapo to arrest you and toss you in a Navy brig until you 'cool off'......(that's a pun!)

Answer 10

I sincerely believe that roaches want nuclear war because they will survive and inherit the Earth.

Answer 11

Wanna try?
Pour a canister of gasoline in your garage, drop a match, and jump in the flame.
You'll know it quick.