Are you against nuclear warfare?
Side Score: 50
Side Score: 24
The creation of nuclear weapons has only caused fear and mass loss of life, directly and indirectly, and it continue as long as nukes are in existence. sure many will argue that without dropping little man and fat man on japan we would have suffered terrible casualties and maybe but we don't know. We could have just firebombed them more like we did to Dresden Germany, or created a blockage, America is good at that.
While it is true that America was preparing to confront Russian and its communism before the end of the war, without nuclear weapons there might have never been a cold war, and thus maybe the iconic battles of the cold war would not have taken place. Russia didn't manage to get a nuclear weapon until 1949.
Now however several nations have nuclear weapons, some more volatile than others, and some have large stockpiles of them. In the event of a nuclear war, and because of a system of alliances, multiple nations would engage with nuclear weapons and decimate earth. Even if America could get its Star Wars missile defense program working would it really be capable of defending against thousands of nukes? The long term environmental damage and dangerous radiation would turn vast areas of the earth into vast wastelands drenched in radiation.
In a nuclear war there are no winners, except for the cockroaches. In the best interest of my survival i must be against nuclear weapons and there use in conflicts.
Nuclear warfare will shatter the tense "peace" that many countries have had. Many more countries will begin production of nuclear weapons, feeling that it is now "the norm."
Not only that, but nuclear warfare can severely damage the environment - the radioactive "clouds" produced would kill plants and animals and have other harmful effects.
The only possible good effect of nuclear warfare would be to demoralize and stun the enemy nation's populace, as occurred with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan as well as the conventional bombing of German cities during World War II, which had a similar effect (to some degree).
Why do they exist in the first place? They are weapons to use in war.
But what is war, really? It's a conflict of beliefs. Whether it's about oil or the elimination of dictators over human rights issues, it always boils down to beliefs.
Are your beliefs worth your life? In most cases, yes. You are your beliefs in action, how can you say that you would still value your life after having all beliefs stripped from you?
Now, what about your neighbor's beliefs, do you value them as much as your own? Probably not, because people appreciate things that they already believe in. You can still value their lives, though you disagree with them, if you are open minded. If you are open minded you can appreciate more people, more ideas that they carry because you see that they are human like you, but they have chosen a different path in life that has led them to where they are. There's a connection between one's appreciation of another and their beliefs, almost a direct connection.
War is the conflict of ideas and the actions that the ideas invoke. Look at the war with the middle East. Even if it is about oil, it's only a disagreement between the people in power and who should have more power to do what they want or need to do. Americans, being the self-righteous and self proclaimed pinnacle governmental founder of human rights and liberty, seem to think that they are always right about everything. We get the power because we know what's best. The outside world doesn't agree. Life isn't so bad everywhere else, especially in Europe and Asia (I'm not saying it's anywhere close to blissful, I'm just making the point that if we're going to "spread democracy" it should be to places that really need a functional government).
Nuclear warfare though, proves nothing of one's beliefs. It takes the humanity out of the disagreement, to where we don't have to deal with each other anymore in a way that forces us to just accept one another. It takes the beliefs out of disagreement. It is nothing more than cold blooded murder, at that point. Like a sport that is rigged to have you win.
Do you see what I'm getting at? It completely undermines the whole reason to kill in the first place. If there are strong disagreements between two nations and their beliefs, it's not about who is right, it's just about who will be left in the end to be right. Where is the humanity in that, where is the understanding? The last person left will likely be the worst because one was too stupid to understand the others position as a human being (There is a lot more to it than that when it comes to nuclear warfare against nations, but all of it only further supports my argument).
I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but nuclear warfare seems completely backwards to me. You could say that I'm idealizing humanity because humanity is constantly reinventing it's definition, but that's just what I want to believe.... so nuke me.
Side: Nukes defeat the utility of war
I totally am because all Nuclear Warfare does is kill and create fear, that's not what America is about. We're about peace,freedom,opportunities and such. If you think about America is one big bully! For example, Hiroshima; what did all those innocent men, women and children to deserve death?! Or Nagasaki what did those people do?! I just recently watched a cartoon on YouTube about Hiroshima that was made by a survivor and it was fucking gut-wrenching and heartbreaking! If you look at it you will agree that Nuclear Warfare is horrible and fucked up! Also I am a democrat but if Barack Obama chooses Nuclear Warfare I say his ass should be impeached from presidency!
How can you be against nuclear warfare..... You can hope it never happens, give reasons why it would be bad, and destructive......But the problem is this....Nuclear warfare is just another kind of warfare, just more effective.......so the question should be against Warfare or not.....not how it's achieved.
if i had a majik button that could eliminate all nuclear weapons forever, i would. but i don't... so why the fuck should the major nations try and eliminate their nuclear weapons? it's the only shit we have that keeps us powerful. Saddam tried to restart his program, and Mahmoud is making his shit... they're not reasonable people, if they have nuclear weapons and we don't, that's basically us bending over with a target on our assholes.
No matter wht you use people die,the numbers may be ahrder but it beats a 100 year war when just one bomb and it's over. s for the affects prehaps it will prevets wasr by showing peole what you can do if you cross them and they will not attack you or make you mad.
Side: quick war
Perhaps nuclear warfare is the way to peace. The only time the world has ever come close to an entirely peaceful state of affairs was when US and Russia were in the middle of the cold war.
We keep thinking that IF and WHEN a nuclear warfare breaks out, everyone will die, but what if the simple EXISTENCE of nuclear warfare is the reason why NO ONE had been blown to bits yet.
The fact is no one dares declare war on a major super power who claims or is believed to have nuclear weapons in fear of retaliation. If that is the case, shouldn't all countries have nuclear weapons?
And if we do end up have a nuclear war, then at least we'll all die together.