Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

If ever another major war occurs during my lifetime, please inform me of which side you are on. I'll then support the opposite side, and await your inevitable surrender. War is a crime, and although the winner is most often the most destructive, it does not equate with being the bigger criminal. Perhaps it would be more rational to acquire an international agreement that differences between nations that necessitate violence should be fought by each of the nations leaders, who are supposed to be the protectors of their citizens. I found, for the most part, the supposed enemy in Viet Nam to be pro-American while at the same time anti-American government. I would suppose the same to be true in most every war. It is those who wish to expand their power and control over the worlds masses who necessitate and bring about wars.

 

as bad as hiroshima and nagasaki were, they were hardly "the worst war crime in the history of history"

not even sure how you would rank such a thing anyways . . .

 

U.S. has killed thousands of civilians with 2 nuclear bombs, it's a fact and not one that doesn't matter on this subject. The states has invaded Iraq officially because they would have these weapons of mass destruction while the U.S. most likely has more of them theirselves. So when people agree other countries should lay down their nuclear arms and even think it was righteous to invade a country like Iraq you would be ok if the states would be invaded because they've got nuclear weapons? No, I didn't think so either, so you can't expect other countries to lay down their arms because the most hypocritical nation on earth tells them to (yes, yes, among other nations). I'm just saying, look at it more objective and you understand why nuclear war remains still a possibility.

 

i can't remembr if i've posted anything completely on-topic here, but

nuclear war remains a possibility, i suppose, maybe between pakistan and india, possibly involving china [but china much less likely than in days of old]

if iraq gets a bomb, expect them to go after israel, and them to retaliate - possibly involving the us, though it'd be batshit crazy for the us to nuke anyone at this point

north korea? they'll fuck up and nuke themselves

frankly it's far less of a concern than back in the cold war

 

I don't know far less, after all in the cold war years it was also for a big part a load of fear mongering.

 

sorry, should've noted that i meant the us was far less likely to do it

there were madmen around back then

douglas macarthur and curtis lemay were just itching to use them things again

and what if krushchev had called kennedy's bluff?

and ronnie, ranging from jokes in poor taste to outright senility

i could be wrong . . . war, nuclear war, my shoulder is killing me, bring it on . . .

 

Damn, is there any more steel left on that axe your always grinding?

 

Dropping those bombs, while horrific in effect, was by far not the most devastating or inhumane thing done during WW2. Also did you ever consider the countless lives it saved by bringing the war to an abrupt end, a war which was projected to continue for another 3 years at least?
I'm pretty sure more lives were saved in the long run then were lost, lives on all sides of the conflict.

 

I think there's a difference between fighting your enemy's army and throwing a nuclear bomb on a city or two to end a war.

 

I think believing that the civilian populace is NOT the primary target in any war is naive' and wishful thinking.
The objective of war is to bring your opposition to a point that they can no longer wage war. Taking out the civilian population base, instilling a moral depression to take the "fighting spirit" out of the other guy and to disrupt economic and technological progress and production ARE the primary goals to win any war.
Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
Why do you think since WW2 and the Geneva Convention every major conflict the U.S. has been involved with has become a long drawn out quagmire of crap? It's because we limit ourselves to only attacking military targets and NOT the civilian population base.

Is it morally wrong to attack non-combatants? yes.
Is attacking ONLY the military the way to decisively win a war? No.

Harsh and cruel sounding, but it is the hard reality of war.
Stop thinking in terms of what is "morally" wrong and unacceptable and start thinking in terms of the brutal realities of waging war.

You may think by my saying this that I am in favor of war against the civilian populace, I'm most assuredly not. But I'm not naive enough to not recognize that it is the fastest most efficient way to win a war.

 

the bombing of civilians was and is an 'acceptable' means of waging war

we may not agree, but we don't make the rules

the terrorizing of civilians up close and personal, such as the japanese did at nanjing, seems to be different, somehow . . .

 

I also think there's a difference between a normal bomb and a nuclear one.

 

get enough 'normal' bombs dropped on ya [hamburg, tokyo, etc.] and you might not think so anymore . . .

 

Nukes are just much more dramatic because one gets the job done as opposed to thousands, but the end result is still the same.
Lots of death and destruction.

 

yes, more people died in fire bombings then did from the atomic bombs

 

Probably, but I rather die in a fire bombing then living with cancer caused by radioactivity. But true, 70000 people were lucky enough to die in less then a minute...

 

eh, you can get cancer from anything . . .

the thing that makes nukes scary is not so much their historical usage, but their potential usage

that is, their ability to - when used in quantity - pretty much annihilate anything and everything

[even the rats and cockroaches might miss us, eventually]

however, that scenario seems highly unlikely at this point . . .

go ahead, you maniacs, surprise me!

 

Ah ok, good excuse.

 

i would hate for anyone to think that i [or presumably, pb smith] is downplaying the horrors of hiroshima or nagasaki

but it's a big old world, and it's been chock full of horrors from day one, i'd suppose

 

Nope, I'm with ya on this one. But it does need to be looked at from perspective devoid of emotional reaction if it is to be truly dealt with in any reasonable fashion.
What a lot of folks in this world don't grasp is that whether or not your message is heard depends a great deal upon the delivery.
Amassing in the street with protest signs and chanting slogans makes for good headlines and provides a cathartic emotional high and degree of self satisfaction, but often doesn't even reach the minds of those the message was intended for simply because of the delivery.

If any progress is to be made in any political or religious arena, than emotion has to give way to logic and rational thought and discourse.

For example with the battle about medical marijuana and legalizing it.
If you have two individuals on the podium, both presenting the same case for legalization and one is dressed in a suit and tie with clean, neatly trimmed hair and all , then the other is wearing baggy shorts, dreadlocks down to their ass, tye dye shirt and beads, which one do you think will have more success at delivering the message to the opposition?
It ain't right, but it is the reality we live with.

You need to learn to tailor the message for the audience for which it is intended otherwise you may as well talk to the mirror.