General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
neonfish07
I fucked Terry Schiavo and all I got was this title (and her food rations for the day)
 
neonfish07's Avatar
 
What justifies the use of a nuclear weapon?

What do you believe justifies the use of a nuclear weapon? Was the United States justified in World War II?

Personally, I believe it should only be used in last-stand defense of your own country. World War II was an exceptional situation as Japan was originally the aggressor.

I really don't have an opinion, so I was hoping you could help me formulate one...

Discuss.
__________________
MIAMI FLORIDA REPRESENT
Old 05-01-2005, 09:59 AM neonfish07 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

wen
 
What justifies the use of any weapon?
__________________
[url]http://www.shens.org[/url]
NbnI|gHub|pUWCmmRPLE
Old 05-01-2005, 10:13 AM wen is offline  
Reply With Quote
#2  

[H]eadup
NEW YORK GIANTS SUPERBOWL CHAMPS, ELI MANNING SUPERBOWL 42 MVP
 
[H]eadup's Avatar
 
of course it was justified in WW2 there is and never will be any remorse for what happened at pearl harbor,

also what would you rather have had a 100,000 dead japenese from a nuke or 100,000 more dead americans from invading the mainland?
Old 05-01-2005, 10:29 AM [H]eadup is offline  
Reply With Quote
#3  

jubjub
TweedleDumber
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonfish07
What justifies the use of a nuclear weapon? ...

the use of a nuclear weapon.
__________________
I didn't say that I didn't say it. I said that I didn't say that I said it. I want to make that very clear.
Old 05-01-2005, 10:34 AM jubjub is offline  
Reply With Quote
#4  

jubjub
TweedleDumber
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonfish07
Was the United States justified in World War II?

yes.
__________________
I didn't say that I didn't say it. I said that I didn't say that I said it. I want to make that very clear.
Old 05-01-2005, 10:35 AM jubjub is offline  
Reply With Quote
#5  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubjub
the use of a nuclear or large scale biological/chemical weapon.

fixt

For anything less we have MOAB's
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323

Last edited by TheMorlock; 05-01-2005 at 11:41 AM..
Old 05-01-2005, 11:35 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#6  

ManSandwichMayo
BelgianSandwich
stfu you cracka
 
harboring Islam
__________________
Atheocon!!!

916a9e42e7c32e2967258d5b221f5f06 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 05-01-2005, 11:53 AM ManSandwichMayo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#7  

ViriiK
http://military.revenanteagle.org/
 
ViriiK's Avatar
 
Yes it was justified in WWII

Do you think it's better to do a landscale invasion of Japan with the both civilian and military population willing to commit Sepiku for the Emperor against a force of 1,000,000 US Soldiers, over 500 Navy Ships, 10,000 Bomber Fleet, etc required to do the job estimating 75% casualty way more than the estimated 20% in Normandy?

We lost 6800 Marines at Iwo Jima which that island was critical for the invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall). And guess what happened when we dropped the bombs on Japan. Their deaths at Iwo Jima had been for nothing.
__________________
- [M]ayhem Gun Club
- [M]ilitary [M]ayhem Club
- Secretary of Defense for the PopeKevinI Administration
- Proud Sponsor of the American Military-Industrial Complex

Last edited by ViriiK; 05-01-2005 at 12:24 PM..
Old 05-01-2005, 12:06 PM ViriiK is offline  
Reply With Quote
#8  

dagamore
 
since most reports at the time, showed that it would have taken more then 3 years and more then 1million US losses, plus at least 2 million Japanes losses to take the islands by force. Since japan was setup and ready to fight foot by foot for all the islands. so i do think that the loss of less then 5% of that number is a good reason.
Old 05-01-2005, 12:14 PM dagamore is offline  
Reply With Quote
#9  

Nano
 
Nothing.

Ever.

Including japan.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-01-2005, 12:14 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#10  

FM 2347
I am offended by the world isajeep.
 
I thought it wsa justified for Japan. Maybe it will be justified for leveling a terrorist camp somewhere. That would be awesome.
Old 05-01-2005, 12:18 PM FM 2347 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#11  

auction1
 
Well, what sort of nuke?
A tactical nuke on a cruise missile? Whenever the battlefield situation calls for good destructive capability in a relatively remote area (perhaps taking out a first-response airfield).
A multiple warhead thermonuclear ballistic missile? Use of a nuclear weapon.

Edit:
I'm cool using the big nukes on anyone who attacks the US directly, collateral embassy damage excluded.

Last edited by auction1; 05-01-2005 at 12:50 PM..
Old 05-01-2005, 12:45 PM auction1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#12  

welk
Sleeman for Admin!
 
welk's Avatar
 
Nothing would ever justify the use of nukes again. They don't just kill millions of people, they also pollute the entire planet (look what chernobyl did, and that was just an accident).

I'm not sure if they were justified against japan. Some people say there would have been huge losses from an invasion (which i don't doubt) but others suggest japan was on the brink of collapse anyway. However even if they had stepped up the pressure by conventional bombing, this may have killed just as many people. However america would have a better moral platform from which to suggest other countires shouldn't have nuclear weapons if it wasn't the only country to have ever used them.

If any country ever uses nukes again then every country in the world should shun them forever.
__________________
Grumpy Old Grandfather of the huge e-family club.
E-grandfather to Whizzlelets, Hoglysis, Augusttremulous elementBAM and Vendetta, Seaweed, Baron_von_PartyHat, Djfacemachine, Sawler, Nanamous, OddFactor.......
26/01/06 Adopted ShortCockJocky :D

Last edited by welk; 05-01-2005 at 01:12 PM..
Old 05-01-2005, 01:09 PM welk is offline  
Reply With Quote
#13  

Slacker
 
Slacker's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by welk
Nothing would ever justify the use of nukes again. They don't just kill millions of people, they also pollute the entire planet (look what chernobyl did, and that was just an accident).

I'm not sure if they were justified against japan. Some people say there would have been huge losses from an invasion (which i don't doubt) but others suggest japan was on the brink of collapse anyway. However even if they had stepped up the pressure by conventional bombing, this may have killed just as many people. However america would have a better moral platform from which to suggest other countires shouldn't have nuclear weapons if it wasn't the only country to have ever used them.

If any country ever uses nukes again then every country in the world should shun them forever.

Chernobyl was a poorly designed nuclear reactor, not a nuclear weapon. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have hundreds of thousands of people living there today. Modern nuclear weapons have very little long term radiation, especially if it's an airburst. Besides there has already been hundred of nuclear tests worldwide and you'll still get more background radiation from minute amounts of radon leaking out of the ground then the aftereffects of nuclear weapons.

Far more people died in conventional firebombings then with nuclear weapons. There was single nights of firebombing Tokyo that produced more casualties.

Aside from a massive attack with dozens or more nuclear weapons I don't think there's any justification for nuking an entire city. Now if it's a remote military base or hardenend bunker of some sort that can only be taken out by a tactical nuclear weapon that's different. I don't see much need for that since we have conventional weapons now that reach into the sub kiloton range. But if the base was the site of production or imminent launch for weapons of mass destruction I could see the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. Unless we have WW3 I don't think there will ever be a justifiable use for strategic nuclear weapons.
__________________
[M]ilitary [M]ayhem
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy
Old 05-01-2005, 01:31 PM Slacker is offline  
Reply With Quote
#14  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [H]eadupMyAss

also what would you rather have had a 100,000 dead japenese from a nuke or 100,000 more dead americans from invading the mainland?

The war was almost over before we dropped the bombs. Many historians argue that the war would have ended very soon even if we had not nuked them.


Why are Japanese lives less valuable than American lives?


Fucking jarhead dumbshit.
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 05-01-2005, 01:34 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#15  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.