Ethical question

Originally posted by CandyKoRn
Right, firstly, What would be the point in making something when you wouldn't use it?

The waste of materials and money would be stupendous.
It's common sense really.

Secondly, if you agree with making these things, then you surely don't value human life, or any life on this planet.

Why make that generalization? Some people who make these things do believe in human life, you can't clump a group of people together under one heading, don't assume things. In fact the nuclear bomb was introduced in order to save human life and casualities of war. And after the devasting effect shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Truman vowed not to use them again. Like i've said before Nukes are a last resort, in today's world where technology and science keep improving an extremely powerful nation such as the U.S. needs to have these things to show off their power and need to have them as the last line of defense in case our other forces fail.

On the other hand, personally I don't give a crap what happens to humankind when these are used. I think they're great weapons.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, you are right Ushgarak! this is getting terribly off the point....no need to discuss this any further...you ware way too unimportant for this....

Sigh... petty last word-ism like that does not make you look any more mature. Don't do that in future.

lol... Powerful nation like the U.S.......
You talk like you're so proud, I wouldn't want to have someone like George Bush with nukes...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, by taking the job he might just be providing for himself. Morality need not enter into it. He is not personally responsible for anything related to a state's defence strategy.

After all, nearly everyone who is anti-capitalist still take jobs that back up the capitalist society. People who disagree with education policies still send their kids to school.

I have never believed in holding anyone ethically responsible for what their work relates to unless they are pioneers or innovators in that field. People are entitled to take jobs offered and available.

i agree

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Second, that statement is your view. It is not the view of a great many people, many people who think that production of nuclear weaponry has saved a staggering amount of lives.

ohhhh this is priceless!!! ''many people who think that production of nuclear weaponry has saved a staggering amount of lives''..
Who and where are they..😠 could they be...any stupider....oh ya, nuclear weapons saved soooooo amny lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

Originally posted by CandyKoRn
lol... Powerful nation like the U.S.......
You talk like you're so proud, I wouldn't want to have someone like George Bush with nukes...

He is not half as scary as Reagan was. Ironically, though, Reagan was hugely responsible for their removal from much of Europe. History is a funny thing.

Originally posted by CandyKoRn
lol... Powerful nation like the U.S.......
You talk like you're so proud, I wouldn't want to have someone like George Bush with nukes...

...i am proud of the U.S.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
ohhhh this is priceless!!! ''many people who think that production of nuclear weaponry has saved a staggering amount of lives''..
Who and where are they..😠 could they be...any stupider....oh ya, nuclear weapons saved soooooo amny lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

They are a staggering number of historians and sociologists who point out that more people MIGHT have died invading Japan than died in the bombs and that nuclear weaponry MIGHT have saved countless lives over the last six decades by preventing any major wars.

This is one of the most common debates in modern history. I do not intend to try and present either case, but it is a case many believe in.

Nuclear weaponry is designed to 'cause fear and destruction, I don't think it has saved as many lives as it has killed.

I don't agree with you at all there, sorry.

Originally posted by CandyKoRn
lol... Powerful nation like the U.S.......
You talk like you're so proud, I wouldn't want to have someone like George Bush with nukes...

TRUE!!

oh and yeah...Ushgarak whatever you say, darlin'....😄

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
ohhhh this is priceless!!! ''many people who think that production of nuclear weaponry has saved a staggering amount of lives''..
Who and where are they..😠 could they be...any stupider....oh ya, nuclear weapons saved soooooo amny lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

...do u know any history?

Historians and military analyst have estimated that over 30,000 american lives were saved with the use of Little Boy and Fat Man, and then add on the amount of Japanese that would have been killed if the war had dragged on for months or even years after 1945...

I did not say I agreed with it. I was simply pointing out the view exists, so that to believe in nuclear weaponry is not necessarily to support the eradication of life.

People who believe that may be WRONG, but it was not their intent, is all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They are a staggering number of historians and sociologists who point out that more people MIGHT have died invading Japan than died in the bombs and that nuclear weaponry MIGHT have saved countless lives over the last six decades by preventing any mjaor wars.

This is one of the most common debates in modern history. I do not intend to try and present either case, but it is a case many believe in.

So why support something when there is no real proof?

This isn't Religion, so no excuses.. lol

There is proof. There is a considerable amount of proof for both sides and if I did not believe it would turn into a shouting match I would be very happy to take part in a debate on it without any firm convictions beforehand.

As it is, this kind of thing is always a very bad idea.

Debates are good.
I like them 😛

Originally posted by CandyKoRn
Nuclear weaponry is designed to 'cause fear and destruction, I don't think it has saved as many lives as it has killed.

I don't agree with you at all there, sorry.

Only 2 NUKES have been used in history, the total death toll is more than the estimated amount of lives saved but that's mostly because of radiation and not the initial impact. One of the key arguments in not wanting to use little boy and fat man was because of the release of radioactive particles and their effect on the victoms. At the time though they didn't have the technology to produce a conventional weapons as massive as a nuke

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They are a staggering number of historians and sociologists who point out that more people MIGHT have died invading Japan than died in the bombs and that nuclear weaponry MIGHT have saved countless lives over the last six decades by preventing any mjaor wars.

This is one of the most common debates in modern history. I do not intend to try and present either case, but it is a case many believe in.

Yeah...key word being..MIGHT! People in Japan are STILL suffering from radiation! Those people that died in a blast had it easiest...many people died from radiation poisiing, and still dying! Generations and generations of people are gonna be deformed....what are you talking about...
Dropping a bomb on Hiroshima...fine, they did it, Japanese got the message, but why did they drop the other one?! what was the point in that one?

Me too but believe me, they turn out badly. We used to have a forum for them- we had to close it.

So probably better just to give an opinion or advice to Mech and not get too much into a vast argument about it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah...key word being..MIGHT! People in Japan are STILL suffering from radiation! Those people that died in a blast had it easiest...many people died from radiation poisiing, and still dying! Generations and generations of people are gonna be deformed....what are you talking about...
Dropping a bomb on Hiroshima...fine, they did it, Japanese got the message, but why did they drop the other one?! what was the point in that one?

Well, many of these are good points and as I say, it is getting into a very complex area. Not being a great fan of nukes myself I do not think I would do the defending argument justice.

It's not worth getting into here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Me too but believe me, they turn out badly. We used to have a forum for them- we had to close it.

So probably better just to give an opinion or advice to Mech and not get too much into a vast argument about it.

well i think that as long as it remains "civilized" it's good right? I mean so far it's been a legit debate...