User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 10:44   #1
Cooling
Tilting at windmills
 
Cooling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 579
Cooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

The following is a transcript of the 1985 Oxford Union debate on the above topic, which was delivered by the (then) New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange.

The Transcript

He passed away yesterday at the age of 63.

His stance on nuclear weapons at the time brought New Zealand into direct conflict with the United States at the height of the Cold War, where this countries ban on all nuclear weapons was seen as a direct affront to the unity of the Western Bloc.

I do hope some of you will take the time to read it and discuss.

A great deal has changed, yet this nations anti-nuclear policy remains, and I do wonder whether it is still nessecary today.
Cooling is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 11:04   #2
pyirt
nomen est omen
 
pyirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,095
pyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond reputepyirt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

In posting this, I have not read the transcript yet. Nuclear weapons do matter to a countries foreign policy, and millitary stratergy: (amazing spelling errors!!) Anyone who thinks otherwise are deluding themselves.
__________________

Me=Hans_Blix
Views expressed are those of the author and not of any company or organisation I am associated with. Electronic communication can be forged and the integrity of this message is not guaranteed.
pyirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 11:50   #3
hyfe
Dum Di Dum Di
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 858
hyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Even though you haven't read the transcript, you could atleast have read the headline and tried posting something relevant to the morality of Nuclear Weapons though.
__________________
Ni! M00!
my boring homepage
hyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 12:10   #4
Texan
Prince of Amber
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,313
Texan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these parts
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

The great strength of the West, in fact, lies not in the force of arms - although some would seek under the cover of a benign democracy to argue that it is in fact the force of arms - but it lies in its free and democratic systems of government.

Who would have thought someone in the Western world would value freedom and democracy? I thought every governmental system and culture was considered equally valid and valuable in the late 20th century. Maybe that thinking only started after 1990, though.
__________________
"We sleep safe at night in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who wish to do us harm." -- George Orwell.
Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 13:11   #5
Deepflow
Next goal wins!
 
Deepflow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan
The great strength of the West, in fact, lies not in the force of arms - although some would seek under the cover of a benign democracy to argue that it is in fact the force of arms - but it lies in its free and democratic systems of government.

Who would have thought someone in the Western world would value freedom and democracy? I thought every governmental system and culture was considered equally valid and valuable in the late 20th century. Maybe that thinking only started after 1990, though.
whut?
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
Deepflow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 20:34   #6
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

He beat Jerry Fallwell? Now that was difficult.
He prevailed on the side of not toasting millions of people? Imagine.
Certainly the use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible, as is the use of conventional weapons, as would be the use of sticks and rocks. War is immoral.

Having said that, I am glad the US dropped the two that it did to end WWII. It was instructive to the whole world. Had we not done so, it is possible that nuclear weapons would have built up without politicians understanding the full ramafications of their use.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 22:41   #7
zakoff
Evul Critter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
zakoff is on a distinguished road
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyirt
In posting this, I have not read the transcript yet. Nuclear weapons do matter to a countries foreign policy, and millitary stratergy: (amazing spelling errors!!) Anyone who thinks otherwise are deluding themselves.
Why do Nuclear weapons matter to Britains foreign policy (for example)? Britain doesn't even have an independent nuclear missile system so its not like we can really use them. They are just there for show basically.

They certainly are morally indefensible, especially in the the current post cold war context. Why does America hold so many Nuclear weapons still? protecting themselves against whom?
__________________
Critters own....
zakoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 22:57   #8
hyfe
Dum Di Dum Di
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 858
hyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
whut?
He was making a jab at Post-modernism and culture-relatavism.

aka, the wonders of writing alot without actually saying anything, because everything is relative and we enjoy using words we don't understand.
__________________
Ni! M00!
my boring homepage
hyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 23:16   #9
Deepflow
Next goal wins!
 
Deepflow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyfe
He was making a jab at Post-modernism and culture-relatavism.

aka, the wonders of writing alot without actually saying anything, because everything is relative and we enjoy using words we don't understand.
Im pretty much aware of what he was trying to do, i just gave him more credit than to do it where he did in the way he did.

oh woe

when will my faith in people prove to be worthwhile?
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
Deepflow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Aug 2005, 23:47   #10
Cooling
Tilting at windmills
 
Cooling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 579
Cooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himCooling is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
He beat Jerry Fallwell? Now that was difficult.
He prevailed on the side of not toasting millions of people? Imagine.
Certainly the use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible, as is the use of conventional weapons, as would be the use of sticks and rocks. War is immoral.
Certainly the use of these weapons is morally indefensible, noone would dispute that. However the deterrance effect of these weapons, coupled with the mutually assured destruction scenario (it was argued) create a situation in which major world conflict is avoided. As a consequence, people are often prone to argue that the existance of these weapons is in fact a good thing.

They typically base their arguments on pure game theory, where the 'value' assigned to world nuclear conflict is negative infinity. As such it is argued that no rational nation would ever seek to actually use its weapons stockpile, because of the certainty of retaliation (The Mutually Assured Destruction scenario).

You will see when you read the argument that the crux of the issue is whether this argument justifies the existance of nuclear weapons.

You might argue that it is idealistic to suggest that alternative avenues are possible; nuclear weapons will always exist and in that you would be right. But does not equate with a justification of their existance.

The question is simply, do the ends (peace on earth, love and harmony) justify the risk of total annihilation?
Cooling is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Aug 2005, 00:00   #11
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooling
Certainly the use of these weapons is morally indefensible, noone would dispute that. However the deterrance effect of these weapons, coupled with the mutually assured destruction scenario (it was argued) create a situation in which major world conflict is avoided. As a consequence, people are often prone to argue that the existance of these weapons is in fact a good thing.

They typically base their arguments on pure game theory, where the 'value' assigned to world nuclear conflict is negative infinity. As such it is argued that no rational nation would ever seek to actually use its weapons stockpile, because of the certainty of retaliation (The Mutually Assured Destruction scenario).

You will see when you read the argument that the crux of the issue is whether this argument justifies the existance of nuclear weapons.

You might argue that it is idealistic to suggest that alternative avenues are possible; nuclear weapons will always exist and in that you would be right. But does not equate with a justification of their existance.
You could say that about conventional forces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooling
The question is simply, do the ends (peace on earth, love and harmony) justify the risk of total annihilation?
We don't have any of those things.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Aug 2005, 06:13   #12
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooling
Certainly the use of these weapons is morally indefensible, noone would dispute that. ?
I'll dispute it. Nuclear weapons are just a bigger version of normal bombs, and their use would be justifiable in many situations. Hiroshima would be the classic example - when you want to win a war, its better to kill lots of the other side than to force your soliders to lose their lives. Even today, I see no a priori reason to completely rule out the use of nuclear weapons- it would be very bad move in most situations for purely pragmatic reasons (mainly the risk of being hit back, and the effect it would have on world opinion), but there may still be situations where it would be justified. A preemptive strike on Iran or North Korea would be worth considering if there were good reasons to believe they were about to acquire nuclear capabilities, and if we could disregard the pragmatic factors* and focus entirely on moral issues, nuking a Chinese city if they invaded Taiwan would probably be a decent idea.


* starting world war 3 and probably ending the civilised world








Anyway, most of his points seem pretty silly. Its easy to be against nuclear weapons when youre on a fairly insignificant island in the middle of nowhere. If a country sharing borders with the soviet union had been against them, I'd be more impressed. I'm struggling to think of good reasons why New Zealand even needs an army, let alone nuclear capabilites.

Quote:
You might argue that it is idealistic to suggest that alternative avenues are possible; nuclear weapons will always exist and in that you would be right. But does not equate with a justification of their existance.
I dont think this makes sense. If something already exists, and will continue to exist no matter what you do, then what are you actually asking for when you talk about justifications? What is the justification for the colour red or Neptune existing? Nothing - theyre just brute facts that youre going to have to live with.

Last edited by Nodrog; 15 Aug 2005 at 06:50.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Aug 2005, 06:27   #13
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooling
They typically base their arguments on pure game theory, where the 'value' assigned to world nuclear conflict is negative infinity. As such it is argued that no rational nation would ever seek to actually use its weapons stockpile, because of the certainty of retaliation (The Mutually Assured Destruction scenario).
My main problem with nuclear weapons isnt the possible of one country annihilating another, but that they make it possible for a small group of people to effectively destroy a nation. The existence of nuclear and biological weapons is what turns terrorism from being a minor annoyance into a potentially global catastrophe. As these weapons become easier to acquire, the risk of a serious attack becomes greater, and all the "mutually assured destruction" in the world isnt going to do anything about it. I would have no real hesitation about classing nuclear weapons (and similar WoMD) as being the worst thing humanity has invented, despite their 'benefits'.

Of course, nations scrapping their nuclear stockpiles is completely irrelevant to this. "If guns are outlawed then only criminals will have guns", and all that.

Last edited by Nodrog; 15 Aug 2005 at 06:46.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Aug 2005, 07:14   #14
ChubbyChecker
King of The Fat Boys
 
ChubbyChecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
ChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

I really don't see how you can say that nuclear weapons are morally indifensible. Many people believe that over the last 60 years nuclear weapons have been responsible for saving countless millions of lives by not allowing World War III to begin.
__________________
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
ChubbyChecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Aug 2005, 22:29   #15
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Mr. Lange was a very articulate speaker in defense of New Zealand's decision not to allow nuclear weapons into New Zealand ports or waters. He was clearly correct that nuclear devices were of no particular benefit to New Zealand.

Again, nuclear weapons are immoral in use. Nucelar weapons are devices of coercion. However, on such a grand scale that it is possible to end all life on earth, certainly to end civilization as we know it. There is a deterrent effect to treatening to kill someone should they try to harm you. There is a deterrent effect to threatening to kill the entire human race should someone try to harm your country. However, it is difficult to see where morality comes into play. It seems immoral to kill all of the innocents in the world in order to see that someone doesn't attack your country. Justifiable under certain logic I suppose but basicly immoral.

Nuclear weapons have no morality on their own. People have morality, not things. Is science moral or immoral? My answer is neither. It simply is. The one sure thing about nuclear weapons was that someone was going to eventually invent/discover them. The science was all in place. The scientists who invented them were very unsure as to exactly what they were going to do. It was not immoral to invent them, it was science. Detonating the first atomic weapon in New Mexico was not immoral, it was science. No one knew for sure what it would do or how powerful it would be until it was detonated. The full effects of atomic weapons wasn't appreciated for decades.

The use of atomic weapons against Japan was justifiable but that is not the same as saying it was moral. Is there necessarily any morality to saying I would rather kill numerous thousands of your citizens rather than allow numerous thousands of my citizens? I can't see any. Self defense is a justification but not necessarily moral.

Once the geni was out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. There was nothing moral or immoral about having nuclear weapons. It is the use of nuclear weapons that becomes a question of morality. For governments to hold the world hostage to its desires is immoral in my opinion.

The world has changed since 1985 and nuclear weapons form a much differnt problem. The emphasis has gone from rogue states to rougue groups and rogue individuals. Does anyone believe that terrorist bombers would not feel morally justified in setting off a 20 magaton bomb in the middle of New York?

The worry is that rogue states will develope atomic weapons and sell them to rogue groups who will detonate them. There could be threats to exterminate an entire nation (Iran? North Korea?) if such a thing occurred but it would not be moral nor would it be effective in all probability.

Speaking of North Korea, an interesting scenario would be: what if PRNK started manufacturing nuclear devices and planting them under their own cities and threatening a mass suicide if anyone tried to disturb the government as it currently is formed. They could be relatively certain no invading army would want to move in. They could also be pretty sure that, if the local populace believed they were crazy enough to do it, there would be no rebellions.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Aug 2005, 23:23   #16
ChubbyChecker
King of The Fat Boys
 
ChubbyChecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
ChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
The use of atomic weapons against Japan was justifiable but that is not the same as saying it was moral. Is there necessarily any morality to saying I would rather kill numerous thousands of your citizens rather than allow numerous thousands of my citizens? I can't see any. Self defense is a justification but not necessarily moral.
They say that if the US had invaded then many more Japanese would have died since they would have jumped off cliffs and shit rather than allow themselves to be captured.

However, 2 weeks before Hiroshima the Japanese government offered to surrender. The US government said that the surrender must be unconditional. The Japanese then said that there would be no unconditional surrender and the US decided to decline the offer. When the Japanese did finally surrender the unconditional surrender wasn't needed anyway since the Emperor was allowed to retain his position. So justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki becomes less cut and dried than it at first appears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
Once the geni was out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. There was nothing moral or immoral about having nuclear weapons. It is the use of nuclear weapons that becomes a question of morality. For governments to hold the world hostage to its desires is immoral in my opinion.

The world has changed since 1985 and nuclear weapons form a much differnt problem. The emphasis has gone from rogue states to rougue groups and rogue individuals. Does anyone believe that terrorist bombers would not feel morally justified in setting off a 20 magaton bomb in the middle of New York?

The worry is that rogue states will develope atomic weapons and sell them to rogue groups who will detonate them. There could be threats to exterminate an entire nation (Iran? North Korea?) if such a thing occurred but it would not be moral nor would it be effective in all probability.

Speaking of North Korea, an interesting scenario would be: what if PRNK started manufacturing nuclear devices and planting them under their own cities and threatening a mass suicide if anyone tried to disturb the government as it currently is formed. They could be relatively certain no invading army would want to move in. They could also be pretty sure that, if the local populace believed they were crazy enough to do it, there would be no rebellions.
Like you say we already have nuclear weapons so saying that we should get rid of them because a terrorist might get a hold of one is wrong, we already have the technology.

And as for North Korea using them on its own people, they could use conventional weapons or chemical weapons instead. The result would not be as devastating but the deterrent would be just as strong. It's pretty much the same thing being blown to shit by some C4 as it is being vapourised by a nuclear warhead.
__________________
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
ChubbyChecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 08:04   #17
I am Idler
This is bat country
 
I am Idler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,693
I am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himI am Idler is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
? protecting themselves against whom?

North Korea, England, Russia, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil and Canada.
__________________
Burárum!
I am Idler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 09:38   #18
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker
And as for North Korea using them on its own people, they could use conventional weapons or chemical weapons instead. The result would not be as devastating but the deterrent would be just as strong. It's pretty much the same thing being blown to shit by some C4 as it is being vapourised by a nuclear warhead.
that is from the perspective of the person being blown up. however with nukes, you are more likely to be a person who is blown up/fried/irradiated and so on.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 09:48   #19
ChubbyChecker
King of The Fat Boys
 
ChubbyChecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
ChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
that is from the perspective of the person being blown up. however with nukes, you are more likely to be a person who is blown up/fried/irradiated and so on.
Fewer people will die, but I doubt whether the citizens of the country in question will be willing to take the chance that the building they're in won't collapse when the government presses the big red button, or that they won't be in the affected area when the poisonous gas is released.
__________________
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
ChubbyChecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 10:22   #20
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker
Fewer people will die, but I doubt whether the citizens of the country in question will be willing to take the chance that the building they're in won't collapse when the government presses the big red button, or that they won't be in the affected area when the poisonous gas is released.
perhaps, but people have stood against tanks and so on in revolutions both succeeded and failed before, knowing that they could well be killed. I doubt people would stand up against nuclear oblivion quite so readily.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 11:37   #21
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Nuclear weapons create thier own justification. Some people believe that nuclear weapons make the world safer. there is an argument (by whom, I forget) that all countries should be given nuclear weapons and that this would mean an end to all wars.

I disagree with this position but nuclear weapons are a fact of life and their very existence is a percieved as a deterrent (although whether they are or not is a different matter).

Nuclear weapons only have real significance with small countries nowadays. How much does Americas nuclear arsenal effect other states relations with them? Probably not much as due to the sheer scale of conventional forces and the massive technological gap make nuclear weapons just the icing on the cake. If all nuclear weapons were removedAmerica would still be the dominant world power as its conventional forces are so much better than anyone elses (except when there are some Britons to catch in 'friendly fire').
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 12:58   #22
KaneED
Motherfracker
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,985
KaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond reputeKaneED has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

I think the arguement that has real significance with regard to nuclear weapons, even more so than the morality of them, is that nuclear missiles cannot be un-invented.

Therefore whatever movements there are against them or whatever arguements there are against them, nuclear weapons will remain part of the nuclear countries' foreign and defensive policy.

The nations that possess nuclear weapons may have all signed up to the NPT and said that they hope to completely phase out nuclear weapons, but the timescale given for that was indefinate so they have no legally binding treaty or documents with which they have to comply.

Anyway, whether nuclear weapons are morally defensible or not, it doens't matter because they're still around and will be around forever or something!
KaneED is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 13:12   #23
Marilyn Manson
Gone
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Exclamation Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Yeah, but what about nuclear dildos?
Marilyn Manson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 13:35   #24
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
Yeah, but what about nuclear dildos?
well apparently "they" wrapped a big steel bar in nukes once and detonated them to create an x-ray laser or something*. I think that might be about as close as you can get.

*or someone worked out that this is what you would have to do to make such a thing. probably for the star wars project.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 19:04   #25
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
Yeah, but what about nuclear dildos?
Are you talking about an actual nuclear dildo or just a nuclear powered dildo with an extended cruising range?
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 22:59   #26
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker
They say that if the US had invaded then many more Japanese would have died since they would have jumped off cliffs and shit rather than allow themselves to be captured.

However, 2 weeks before Hiroshima the Japanese government offered to surrender. The US government said that the surrender must be unconditional. The Japanese then said that there would be no unconditional surrender and the US decided to decline the offer. When the Japanese did finally surrender the unconditional surrender wasn't needed anyway since the Emperor was allowed to retain his position. So justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki becomes less cut and dried than it at first appears.
The Japanese government contacted Stalin's government, which had not yet entered the war to inquire as to what was meant by "unconditional surrender."

Truman did not trust the Russians and Stalin in particular. The Russians were to enter the war against Japan no later than August 15, 1945. Truman wanted to end the war against the Japanese before the Russians could attack and arguably send troops into Japan. Thus the only two nuclear devices the American's had were detonated leading to the Japanese surrender.

Side note: My uncle was in the American Army Air Force and was stationed on Tinian Island. They knew that there was a top secret mission at the base but had no idea what it was. Rumors were such that he got up in the middle of the night to watch a plane take off. It was the Enola Gay on its way to Hiroshima though he didn't know that for some time.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Aug 2005, 23:46   #27
flapjack
crashed computer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,257
flapjack is infamous around these parts
Re: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible [Long]

the only thing in favor of nukes is probably that if we spot an asteroid heading towards Earth early enough, we can throw a substantial part of the planet's nuclear arsenal at it to bend said asteroid off course by a tiny margin (which would result in said asteroid missing the planet by a substantial margin).

Either way, like Einstein said: "I don't know what the 3rd world war will be fought with, but the 4th world war will be fought with sticks and stones."
__________________
IRC quotes:
<Walrus> Let's all poke him next time he appears.
<Heiro> I think that is wise, Master Walrus

<Gryffin> ungrateful wretches
<Gryffin> they should be here!
<Gryffin> so I can grace them with my presence
flapjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018