Author Topic: Nuclear weapons  (Read 508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Nuclear weapons
« on: December 05, 2010, 07:22:24 PM »
I was watching a rerun of JAG the other day, where one of the characters carries the nuclear football.  I was just curious as to where everyone stands on the morality of using a nuclear weapon, whether you think they should never be used, should be used only if first fired at us, or can be used in other situations.

Just as a note, this is not about nuclear energy and I don't care what the enviro-nazis have to say about nuclear energy.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2010, 08:42:09 PM »
I was watching a rerun of JAG the other day, where one of the characters carries the nuclear football.  I was just curious as to where everyone stands on the morality of using a nuclear weapon, whether you think they should never be used, should be used only if first fired at us, or can be used in other situations.

Just as a note, this is not about nuclear energy and I don't care what the enviro-nazis have to say about nuclear energy.

Once you start killing people, especially women and children, what difference does it really make how you do it.  We see the horrible pictures of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But do you really think the people that survived Rostock and Dresden with second and third degree burns feel any better?  There is nothing honorable about modern warfare, nor is there anything heroic about those that play the war game.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline vamrat

  • Vamratoraptor
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,374
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2010, 03:39:55 PM »
"War is Hell".  The usage of nuclear weapons just heightens the metaphor.
Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.

Offline admiralnick

  • Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,880
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2010, 03:45:36 PM »
Like Punch said, when you start killing people it really doesn't matter how you do it..... The thing that throws a wrench into it is that countries like North Korea and Iran and the former Soviet Union didn't have to deal with their populace's moral outrage. As far as my personal feelings if you are in a state of war which has been declared by congress and you have had military acts against you and your populace, then a response of this nature should be considered a viable option. It amazes me how everyone complains that the US has nuclear weapons and how horrible it is... But I don't see protestors going to North Korea to tell them not to seek a nuclear weapon.......


-Nick
The ORIGINAL: "NULL"

Offline CRCulver

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,159
  • St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi
    • ChristopherCulver.com
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2010, 04:44:53 PM »
I've seen reports through the years of Russian priests blessing raketchiki (the people who would perform launches of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles). These soldiers are treated the same as any other by the Church.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,200
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2010, 04:56:13 PM »
I think that there is a moral distinction between thermo-nuclear weapons and conventional weaponry. While I agree with Punch that the victims of the Allied fire bombing campaigns against German cities were essentially in the same position as the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the use of such weapons today could produce a devastating, potentially civilization ending result if both sides in a war used them for massive, retaliatory purposes. The nuclear winter that would follow and the catastrophic impact on all forms of life on this planet elevate the discussion to a different level of analysis. There is no way to guarantee that their use for tactical purposes by one side would not lead to mutually assured destruction. Also, the potential use by terrorists and rouge states presents another series of moral issues to consider. Despite the horrors and pain that even the most potent conventional weapon or attack may produce, these impacts pale in comparison to the after-effects of radiation poisoning.

Offline Gamliel

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,534
  • ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστον βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2010, 03:29:47 AM »
If we let a couple nuclear bombs go off on the other side of the earth, some of that radiation could head our way.  We would be shooting ourselves in the foot by using them.

Offline Ortho_cat

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,392
Re: Nuclear weapons
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2010, 03:48:00 AM »
They should be used to destroy asteroids headed towards our planet.