WMD's

[Robin]

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) are weapons that a fully capable of killing huge amounts of people, or destroying a large area of land and damaging any properties in place there.

In the past, many people have lost their lives from WMD attacks on their location. In the past they have been used and the effects caused by them have been colossal. Examples such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima justify that.



Do you think WMD's should be allowed for any country to develop and use? Discuss.

 

[Caius]

In this day and age, a country really will have weapons of destruction no matter the legality. That's why there are anti missile defense systems, and other defenses in place to counter what is already there.

In the past, it's always been a race for countries to compete in creating the most 'Earth changing' phenomenon through science that is humanly possible. In the fifties, it was greater destructive force weapons. This was because it was between WW1 and WW2, and we actually needed defenses to keep America safe.

The same thing happened with rockets, and the race for the moon, or the race to see who could put the first satellite in space. It's all just a large race, and with the remainder, it's a reminder of who won. This is where your 'weapons of mass destruction' come in.

Russia, 1960's. During the Cold War, these weapons were kept scattered all over the world for the protection of other countries. America kept theirs in Turkey (I believe) and Russia had a number hidden in Cuba. It became a political escapade to see who would pull out first, and what would become of that if one country were to say 'enough' and fire against another.

Nobody did. It was just that, a frozen war, each side not wanting to make the first move and endanger their people, however if the weapons weren't there, it wouldn't have stopped one country from invading another.

In conclusion, it's not the weapons or what they can destroy, it's the political sway they hold over the world that is being put more into use. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the only way to end the war was to bomb them. Most of the Japanese would have died fighting, and it would have resulted in a very near genocide had the Emperor not ordered a cease fire on the Japanese side.

 

[Robin]

In conclusion, it's not the weapons or what they can destroy, it's the political sway they hold over the world that is being put more into use. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the only way to end the war was to bomb them. Most of the Japanese would have died fighting, and it would have resulted in a very near genocide had the Emperor not ordered a cease fire on the Japanese side.

Was it really the only way to end the war was to bomb innocent civilians in Japan who weren't even fighting?

 

[Caius]

In conclusion, it's not the weapons or what they can destroy, it's the political sway they hold over the world that is being put more into use. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the only way to end the war was to bomb them. Most of the Japanese would have died fighting, and it would have resulted in a very near genocide had the Emperor not ordered a cease fire on the Japanese side.

Was it really the only way to end the war was to bomb innocent civilians in Japan who weren't even fighting?

That's politics. Even if you don't realize it you are a part of anything going on with your country's government. If it wasn't stopped then more lives would have been lost. There WAS no peaceful resolution to WW2.

I don't think you realize how many people in Pearl Harbor died when the Japanese bombed the US either, or how the Japanese aided Germany in their genocide.

 

[Robin]

In conclusion, it's not the weapons or what they can destroy, it's the political sway they hold over the world that is being put more into use. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the only way to end the war was to bomb them. Most of the Japanese would have died fighting, and it would have resulted in a very near genocide had the Emperor not ordered a cease fire on the Japanese side.

Was it really the only way to end the war was to bomb innocent civilians in Japan who weren't even fighting?

That's politics. Even if you don't realize it you are a part of anything going on with your country's government. If it wasn't stopped then more lives would have been lost. There WAS no peaceful resolution to WW2.

I don't think you realize how many people in Pearl Harbor died when the Japanese bombed the US either, or how the Japanese aided Germany in their genocide.

In a way does that mean you are saying that it's fine for USA to bomb Japan, because what Japan did was unacceptable anyway? If things like that happen today, the planet could be blown to pieces with countries using WMD's in retaliation to one another.

 

[Caius]

I'm not saying it's okay to bomb anyone, but during WW2, to prevent the united states, or hell other countries fighting on OUR side, the only options available were A) Invasion or B) a bombing. It was estimated that more lives would have been destroyed on BOTH sides had we invaded Tokyo, which wasn't worth it to begin with. I'm not saying it's ethnically correct, but I'm not going to sit here and defend Japan either when they were the ones that leapt into the war with an air raid on Pearl Harbor.

I hate to break it to you, but Nuclear missiles are being fired every day, most of them by Korea into the Pacific ocean, a while ago there were actually threats of war because Japan and the US (Hawaii) Were fed up with the possibility of being struck by them. This is nothing new. It's not going to blow a hole in the planet when a rocket crashes. It's a lot stronger than you think, and yes, we may be on the verge of a Nuclear war, but when you can basically build a destructive bomb in your garage now-days, someone's going to be dumb enough to use it.

 

[Caius]

What brought this on, anyway?

 

[lilypad]

No.

1. They kill innocent people.
2. Just the idea of having WMDs promotes war.
3. Bad for the environment - all that radiation, etc.

I think there are better ways to get a point across.

 

[Caius]

No.

1. They kill innocent people.
2. Just the idea of having WMDs promotes war.
3. Bad for the environment - all that radiation, etc.

I think there are better ways to get a point across.

It's not having WMD's that promotes war, it's countries with a superiority complex. They wouldn't have been brought about if it weren't for that little fact.

 

[Kyle]

WMDs don't exist, only IBMs do as of now.

 

[Nic]

There once was a gun which was made by the Japanese which was a ray gun. If it hit you it would burn you in a second (somewhere close to there). I watched a document on it while back ago. =P

 

[Caius]

Oh u japan.

Not to mention DARPA is putting out some pretty cool stuff. Guns with sensors that sense the retina of your eye and all.

 

[Kyle]

There once was a gun which was made by the Japanese which was a ray gun. If it hit you it would burn you in a second (somewhere close to there). I watched a document on it while back ago. =P

Because everyone has so low IQ that it is so logical

 

[Garrett x50 cal]

http://zeus.explainthisimage.com/content/739/resized/unxplained-photo-1233644431-83531.jpg

 

[lilypad]

No.

1. They kill innocent people.
2. Just the idea of having WMDs promotes war.
3. Bad for the environment - all that radiation, etc.

I think there are better ways to get a point across.

It's not having WMD's that promotes war, it's countries with a superiority complex. They wouldn't have been brought about if it weren't for that little fact.

Didn't Bush want to invade Iraq because he thought there was WMDs that could threaten us? I may be wrong haha but I thought that was a reason. That's what I meant before about promoting war.

 

[Robin]

What brought this on, anyway?

Not sure, I was just thinking about the topic and wondered what other people's thoughts on the topic were.

 

[muffun]

http://zeus.explainthisimage.com/content/739/resized/unxplained-photo-1233644431-83531.jpg

Pretty sure that mouse can't cause mass destruction.

 

[Caius]

No.

1. They kill innocent people.
2. Just the idea of having WMDs promotes war.
3. Bad for the environment - all that radiation, etc.

I think there are better ways to get a point across.

It's not having WMD's that promotes war, it's countries with a superiority complex. They wouldn't have been brought about if it weren't for that little fact.

Didn't Bush want to invade Iraq because he thought there was WMDs that could threaten us? I may be wrong haha but I thought that was a reason. That's what I meant before about promoting war.

I dunno, i'm pretty sure it was a big part but It's not like there were any WMD'S in Iraq. The big thing with that was it was about terrorism and then pushed into economic things like oil.

 

[Caius]

http://zeus.explainthisimage.com/content/739/resized/unxplained-photo-1233644431-83531.jpg

Pretty sure that mouse can't cause mass destruction.

 

[Pear]

No.

1. They kill innocent people.
2. Just the idea of having WMDs promotes war.
3. Bad for the environment - all that radiation, etc.

I think there are better ways to get a point across.

It's not having WMD's that promotes war, it's countries with a superiority complex. They wouldn't have been brought about if it weren't for that little fact.

Didn't Bush want to invade Iraq because he thought there was WMDs that could threaten us? I may be wrong haha but I thought that was a reason. That's what I meant before about promoting war.

I dunno, i'm pretty sure it was a big part but It's not like there were any WMD'S in Iraq. The big thing with that was it was about terrorism and then pushed into economic things like oil.

I'm pretty sure there were WMD's there at one point. It's not like hundred's of thousands of Kurds just randomly dropped dead.

Anyways, I think that they shouldn't be allowed. It just makes people anxious, and they usually kill more civilians than soldiers. The U.S. always gets on people's cases for building nuclear weapons, when we have on of the biggest stockpiles in the world. Hypocritical much?