Should the US make new nukes? Options

[*kryogenix*]

Does that matter? When the U.S. bombed Japan. Most people don't learn from thier mistakes and as they say history repeats itself. If we learned from the 1st war we had to not have war, do you think there would no war in history after that 1st war? If we had learned not to have war, would be discussing having nukes right now?

There hasn't been a nuclear weapon used in anger since... And that's what we're trying to prevent.

[sakaitone]

What the f**k? Is china really f**ked up? Are they seriously going to let people died no matter what?

Whoa, there are some moral issues.

Maybe, that’s why China is label one of top “smartest” countries because they have a pretty high amount of knowledge. They don’t care about moral educations or what?
Beside, is China a wealthy city? why is their enviroment so bad?

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

[*kryogenix*]

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

China is making loads of money at the expense of its environment (actually, at the expense of other countries' environments, but that's a different story). All countries do it, but China is notorious for its pollution and lack of concern for public safety if it means making more money.

[demolished]

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country and you ask if it's a city. Are you failing Social Studies? No offense.

Honestly, Spiritual Winged Aura you can't assume China has moral issues based on what ONE person said. That's so close minded, you're stereo-typing the Chinese goverment based on a person who spends their time online making empty threats, that probably don't have that much power in goverment anyway. There are millions, maybe even billions of people in China and you're going to throw away sense and make assumtions about a WHOLE country on ONE person. I don't want to be rude but that's pretty stupid.

read and ...
comprehend
every word ..
again.

AND think again.

thank you.

[sakaitone]

OK look, if I am offending by any means I am sorry but you did ask if China was really that f**Ked up and I just thought that you shouldn't be so...I don't know...Close-minded. It's nice you have your your opinion and if I by any means offended you, then sorry. I kind of have a thing of exploding at people and that really gives me no right to insult you in any way,shape or form, so sorry again. I really didn't mean anything. It's amazing how many sorrys I can fit into one message. Yes, it's probably true that the enviroment is getting worse and that it's pretty "smart" as you put it. I agree with kryogenix about all the other countries. Like I said before, we should put aside war and work on inportant life saving issues like a cure for AIDS or a way to end world hunger....That's something most people can benfit from.

[demolished]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... i was testing his knowledge with load of question marks.

I know China isnt really f**ked up before anyone mentioned it . i wasnt intentionally speaking directly about China. In a way, i was only making that dude look more "uneducated" with my rude questions. Since he was rambling his outrageous video thoughts, i would like to act retarded as well … of course, for fun.

however, where are you from? i guess, our form of comprehending language is probably a bit different. And i accept that.

[sakaitone]

It's really hard to get through what you're saying, when I can't hear you say it or sense you TONE of saying it, I find it easier to understand a person when you can observe them in person. Yea, because I am a very very slow person...in a way but no less cynical. If you're asking me where I am from. Well, where do you think I am from?

[demolished]

i dont see you as a slow person ... oh well.

China?

[sakaitone]

You would think so...but no. Not China. New York. I am kind of "concerned" about the future of America....Concerned isn't the right word...I could try "struck with unbelievable fear of stupidity in the U.S." which both seem to be a little too mean...which is really cynical and some what outrageous. I would like to save that for some old mad-at-the-world reporter. The U.S. is going on a blood-lust fest with all this war and creating nukes.

[innovation]

First of all, we're not debating the morality of the Chinese government. We're debating US nuclear policy.

Secondly, kryogenix, what is the difference between strategic and tactical weapons?

How can we argue that it's okay for us to not only have nukes, but make nukes, yet it's not okay for, say, Iran or North Korea to do the same?

According to the NPT, the five nuclear weapon states (NWS) are the US, the UK, the Russian Federation, China, and France. Non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the NPT have also agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons, and thus, by international law, Iran may not possess nuclear weapons, since it is subject to the NPT.

North Korea withdrew from the NPT, but that shouldn't excuse it from offenses committed before withdrawal. Here lies a flaw within the NPT-- no retribution for offensive nations after withdrawal from the NPT. That's why there has been so much discussion about inserting an exit clause that in some ways punishes nations from withdrawing.

However, I do agree that the US hasn't exactly been abiding by the NPT either. In this treaty, the NWS, including the US, agreed to commit to reduction of arms and eventual disarmament. My question is.. are these new weapons meant to replace the old ones? In other words, will the US destroy old weapons in exchange for fewer new weapons (if that makes any sense)?

[*mipadi*]

I understand that legally, there are certain treaties forbidding some nations from having nuclear weapons. I'm asking the question in the context of morals and ethics. Are these treaties even ethical or fair? Why or why not?

[sakaitone]

I understand that legally, there are certain treaties forbidding some nations from having nuclear weapons. I'm asking the question in the context of morals and ethics. Are these treaties even ethical or fair? Why or why not?

It doesn't seem fair....treaties are meant to supply PEACE, not who can have nukes and who can't. This is so 2nd grade. A second grader has 2 cupcakes, and she has two friends who both want a cupcake. Of course, she wants one for herself since it's hers, she gets it but who should get the other one? The one that's nicer to her or the one who has been her friend longer? The reasonable answer is cut the cupcake in half. But how are the countries going to cut the amount of nukes into even amounts. Not everyone is willing to share... So I really don't think it's fair, they should all have the same amount of nukes and I hope it would be a small amount.

[NinjaxMageLayout...]

No the us should not make nukes and we should try to prevent bush'es dumb a$$ from getting us into foreign affairs that we shouldnt be in because now korea vowed to bomb us with a nuke if we attack pre-emphitaly <--i cant spell that but oh well.And if a nuke is blasted,its the end of the world because the chemicals in the bomb is so bad and it will spread every where because of the wind,and it will travel around the world.Killing us.

[demolished]

......... so ?

we have the checks and balance crap.

one can override the president's decisions.

we have representatives, senate .. and etc.

[BabypeachesLR]

......... so ?

we have the checks and balance crap.

one can override the president's decisions.

we have representatives, senate .. and etc.

And that doesnt stop them from bombing us.What the hell can balance checks do to help us from being bombed.If they bomb us this whole world dies because of the chemicals will travel in the wind.

[sakaitone]

And that doesnt stop them from bombing us.What the hell can balance checks do to help us from being bombed.If they bomb us this whole world dies because of the chemicals will travel in the wind.

Wind? Do you mean radiation or something? Are you saying that if they bomb the U.S. that it will eventually kill the world? Hey, they bombed Japan and the rest of us aren't dead.

[snak3y3z1001]

No the us should not make nukes and we should try to prevent bush'es dumb a$$ from getting us into foreign affairs that we shouldnt be in because now korea vowed to bomb us with a nuke if we attack pre-emphitaly <--i cant spell that but oh well.And if a nuke is blasted,its the end of the world because the chemicals in the bomb is so bad and it will spread every where because of the wind,and it will travel around the world.Killing us.

one nuke wont destroy the world now if we blasted every single nukes from a single boomer then the world could be destroy. forgot how many we have around the world

[NinjaxMageLayout...]

Wind? Do you mean radiation or something? Are you saying that if they bomb the U.S. that it will eventually kill the world? Hey, they bombed Japan and the rest of us aren't dead.

Thats because it wasnt a nuke.

one nuke wont destroy the world now if we blasted every single nukes from a single boomer then the world could be destroy. forgot how many we have around the world

Please dont tell me that,im scared off my a$$ that korea will bomb us and i really really hope not........but anyway one nuke can destroy the world because of the radiation and the chemicals will pollute the water,and our needed sources and it will kill us slowly.For now all america can do is pray that it wont happen.

[snak3y3z1001]

^^ if that was true dont you think we be dead by now? the two atomic bombs that we dropped on Japan during WWII was a type of nuclear bomb. Millions of people died and shitload of people got contaminated by radiation. However Japan are still thriving. US have done a few test on US soil as well. We're still alive and breathing.

[magicfann]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... i was testing his knowledge with load of question marks.

I know China isnt really f**ked up before anyone mentioned it . i wasnt intentionally speaking directly about China. In a way, i was only making that dude look more "uneducated" with my rude questions. Since he was rambling his outrageous video thoughts, i would like to act retarded as well … of course, for fun.

however, where are you from? i guess, our form of comprehending language is probably a bit different. And i accept that.

uh duhhhh i think you should stop taking everything i say seriously cuz honestly i like to dick around on these forums a lot

"is china really such a rich city?"
yes, china is a very rich city, especially with all these subcities like shanghai and beijing uh duhhrrrr gg try passing world studies before you start saying i look 'uneducated'

[*mipadi*]

Thats because it wasnt a nuke.

A "nuke" is a colloquial term for any nuclear weapon. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan, then, are considered to be "nukes".

Please dont tell me that,im scared off my a$$ that korea will bomb us and i really really hope not........but anyway one nuke can destroy the world because of the radiation and the chemicals will pollute the water,and our needed sources and it will kill us slowly.For now all america can do is pray that it wont happen.

A single nuke would not destroy the world, nor cause most of the world to come to great harm. Radiation would kill people in a certain area and poison other life forms in a nearby area, and could cause some trouble over a greater distance depending on weather conditions, but it would not destroy the world or even all life on Earth.

[*kryogenix*]

Heck even several atomic explosions would not destroy the world. The whole nuclear winter theory was brought about by the propaganda campaigns of the Soviet Union and US in order to keep a policy of MAD.

[demolished]

uh duhhhh i think you should stop taking everything i say seriously cuz honestly i like to dick around on these forums a lot

"is china really such a rich city?"
yes, china is a very rich city, especially with all these subcities like shanghai and beijing uh duhhrrrr gg try passing world studies before you start saying i look 'uneducated'

uh huhhhhh. is china a cool country?

[*ECD & C0*]

I think we should try and keep other countries from having neuclear weapons, and build them ourselves It's a doggy dog world out there, and if we need to defend ourselves, then we should

werd

You asked if China is a city? You're joking right? It's the world's 3rd largest country

its actually the 4th if you count the total US and all of its territories but it is bigger then the continental US

The area of the United States is 9,631,418 sq km, or 3,718,711 sq miles - about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; about two and a half times the size of Western Europe

[fameONE]

War by atrition is the way of the future. *LoL*

Seriously though... yes.

Give war a chance.