Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56264
    01 Oct '15 08:03
    Is there any situation in which you would find it morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons; knowing that using them probably won't kill the enemy (he'll be in a bunker), but will kill thousands of civilians?
  2. Subscriberlemondrop
    pawn grabber
    Joined
    19 Jul '13
    Moves
    201759
    01 Oct '15 08:14
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Is there any situation in which you would find it morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons; knowing that using them probably won't kill the enemy (he'll be in a bunker), but will kill thousands of civilians?
    if attacked by a nation using a nuclear weapon....
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    01 Oct '15 09:22
    Originally posted by lemondrop
    if attacked by a nation using a nuclear weapon....
    So explain the morality of mutually assured destruction, then explain for example the morality of Israel threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons that they lack. What aspect of mass murder has a basis in morality?
  4. Subscriberlemondrop
    pawn grabber
    Joined
    19 Jul '13
    Moves
    201759
    01 Oct '15 11:00
    Originally posted by finnegan
    So explain the morality of mutually assured destruction, then explain for example the morality of Israel threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons that they lack. What aspect of mass murder has a basis in morality?
    what would you do if your country was attacked with a nuclear weapon?
    I would never advocate for a first strike but have no problem with retaliation in equal or greater force
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Oct '15 11:00
    Originally posted by finnegan
    So explain the morality of mutually assured destruction, then explain for example the morality of Israel threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons that they lack. What aspect of mass murder has a basis in morality?
    2 enemies can shake hands and make peace if they hold a knife to the other guys throat with the other hand. very moral. there is peace. this is a good example of ends justifying the means.


    "What aspect of mass murder has a basis in morality?"
    we are talking about the threat of mass murder. not actual mass murder.

    "Israel threatening its neighbours"
    when did they do that? they never admitted to have nuclear weapons so how can they threat anyone with them?
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52851
    01 Oct '15 11:59
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    2 enemies can shake hands and make peace if they hold a knife to the other guys throat with the other hand. very moral. there is peace. this is a good example of ends justifying the means.


    "What aspect of mass murder has a basis in morality?"
    we are talking about the threat of mass murder. not actual mass murder.

    "Israel threatening its neighbour ...[text shortened]... ey do that? they never admitted to have nuclear weapons so how can they threat anyone with them?
    Mutual assured destruction has at least kept the major powers out of a nuclear war. Of course that won't stop the first terrorist with a backpack nuke from destroying Manhattan.
  7. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    01 Oct '15 12:14
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Mutual assured destruction has at least kept the major powers out of a nuclear war. Of course that won't stop the first terrorist with a backpack nuke from destroying Manhattan.
    Let's get to the real nub. A US President, an unelected one at that, first ordered deployment of a nuclear weapon, twice, using the argument that it ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives. Was that argument valid?
  8. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56264
    01 Oct '15 13:14
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Let's get to the real nub. A US President, an unelected one at that, first ordered deployment of a nuclear weapon, twice, using the argument that it ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives. Was that argument valid?
    I don't think it is, no.
    A lot of women and children were murdered.
  9. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55370
    01 Oct '15 13:40
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Let's get to the real nub. A US President, an unelected one at that, first ordered deployment of a nuclear weapon, twice, using the argument that it ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives. Was that argument valid?
    Of course it's valid. The US was at war with Japan. All that matters is that it saved American lives. War is a simple issue -- two sides are trying to wipe each other out. I want to survive, nothing that helps me survive should be off limits.
  10. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56264
    01 Oct '15 13:47
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Of course it's valid. The US was at war with Japan. All that matters is that it saved American lives. War is a simple issue -- two sides are trying to wipe each other out. I want to survive, nothing that helps me survive should be off limits.
    So 9-11 is justified then?
    And gas attacks on US civilians?

    Is there anything you would consider not doing to someone if they offered the same to your child?
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52851
    01 Oct '15 13:49
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Of course it's valid. The US was at war with Japan. All that matters is that it saved American lives. War is a simple issue -- two sides are trying to wipe each other out. I want to survive, nothing that helps me survive should be off limits.
    Wrong, TOTALLY wrong. Japan was within a week or so of admitting defeat. The REAL message of the bomb was to the Soviet Union. Don't mess with the USA. But all that did was to spur the USSR to get their own bombs come hell or high water.

    A fail in both cases.
  12. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55370
    01 Oct '15 14:23
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    So 9-11 is justified then?
    And gas attacks on US civilians?

    Is there anything you would consider not doing to someone if they offered the same to your child?
    No, 9-11 is a terrorist attacks. None of their attacks of any form are justified.
  13. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55370
    01 Oct '15 14:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Wrong, TOTALLY wrong. Japan was within a week or so of admitting defeat. The REAL message of the bomb was to the Soviet Union. Don't mess with the USA. But all that did was to spur the USSR to get their own bombs come hell or high water.

    A fail in both cases.
    There is no evidence that Japan would surrender immediately. But if, during war, it saved US lives than the US would be justified anyway.
  14. Subscriberdivegeester
    Leave Means Leave
    Voting not marching!
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    88797
    01 Oct '15 14:41
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Is there any situation in which you would find it morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons; knowing that using them probably won't kill the enemy (he'll be in a bunker), but will kill thousands of civilians?
    How are nuclear weapons any less moral than conventional weapons?
  15. Subscriberdivegeester
    Leave Means Leave
    Voting not marching!
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    88797
    01 Oct '15 14:42
    Was the mass bombing of German cities in WW2 morally acceptable?
Back to Top