Do you believe it is ever the right option to use weapons of this type?
Most major nations have weapons like this, so using them isn't really possible, because it is a stalemate. Unless of course someone creates a real defense system against nuclear weapons.
Now, I know about the consequences of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (my girlfriend is from Nagasaki herself). If you're working against an enemy that can't be negotiated, isn't it better to eradicate the enemy in any way possible that doesn't involve losing your own people? The Japanese weren't surrendering and at that stage of the war we all know they should've. So instead of a landing (like on the French coastline) where there would be fire-fights throughout all of Japan, with perhaps even more civilians dying, the Americans ended the war that was going on for far too long and already taking too many lives.
By the way, I'm not talking about bombing any nations specifically, I'm talking about if you believe if it is EVER morally right to use weapons like that, even on cities were civilians inhabit. I was using Nagasaki and Hiroshima as examples (as they are the only examples to really use). It doesn't have to be the same situation as WW II either.
Most major nations have weapons like this, so using them isn't really possible, because it is a stalemate. Unless of course someone creates a real defense system against nuclear weapons.
Now, I know about the consequences of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (my girlfriend is from Nagasaki herself). If you're working against an enemy that can't be negotiated, isn't it better to eradicate the enemy in any way possible that doesn't involve losing your own people? The Japanese weren't surrendering and at that stage of the war we all know they should've. So instead of a landing (like on the French coastline) where there would be fire-fights throughout all of Japan, with perhaps even more civilians dying, the Americans ended the war that was going on for far too long and already taking too many lives.
By the way, I'm not talking about bombing any nations specifically, I'm talking about if you believe if it is EVER morally right to use weapons like that, even on cities were civilians inhabit. I was using Nagasaki and Hiroshima as examples (as they are the only examples to really use). It doesn't have to be the same situation as WW II either.
|
|
|
|
コメント(78)
I think the problem is that even if countries come out and say ok we are destroying our nuclear weapons, most people with a brain know that is really a lie.
Ever since the atomic bomb was used the world has been aware of it's devastating effects and as soon as countries were able to they got nukes for those "just in case" moments, NO country is going to take the risk or words of another when it comes down to nukes. So while they may have actually destroyed some, I am sure the military of each country has at least a few laying around.
I don't know if it would mean the end of life on earth but I think if there ever was a real nuke war it would fuck up the planet so bad that it would make life very nasty after, I also think anyone willing to cause a nuke war would have to be insane....or what I would consider evil.
Ever since the atomic bomb was used the world has been aware of it's devastating effects and as soon as countries were able to they got nukes for those "just in case" moments, NO country is going to take the risk or words of another when it comes down to nukes. So while they may have actually destroyed some, I am sure the military of each country has at least a few laying around.
I don't know if it would mean the end of life on earth but I think if there ever was a real nuke war it would fuck up the planet so bad that it would make life very nasty after, I also think anyone willing to cause a nuke war would have to be insane....or what I would consider evil.
超ﾈｵ★
I don't get viruses, and I'm happily on windows. Maybe the reason Unix, Linux, and Mac have no viruses is because no one uses them so there is no point in writing a virus for them? 80% of PC users are on Windows, so it makes sense to write the most viruses for it. Besides, if you're getting viruses on Windows then you aren't even bothering to protect it properly, and there are tons of free virus programs that are very good.
Funky Love Bunny, there is nothing wrong with Uranium. There are good uses for it outside bombs, so there is nothing to be ashamed of.
I don't get viruses, and I'm happily on windows. Maybe the reason Unix, Linux, and Mac have no viruses is because no one uses them so there is no point in writing a virus for them? 80% of PC users are on Windows, so it makes sense to write the most viruses for it. Besides, if you're getting viruses on Windows then you aren't even bothering to protect it properly, and there are tons of free virus programs that are very good.
Funky Love Bunny, there is nothing wrong with Uranium. There are good uses for it outside bombs, so there is nothing to be ashamed of.
>Moonchilde
this isn't related to the post, but i have to correct ur statement about viruses and unix. the reason that unix systems don't get viruses is not because people don't write linux viruses, but instead its how the OS is designed. on unix systems, ur have to log in as admin (root) everytime you want to make a change to the system, the only way a unix system can get a virus is if the software guesses your password or you install it. so if you install a virus, you simply deserve it. Windows however, when your logged on you have full privileges to edit anything, including system files, therefore, when you click an a page with virus, etc, the virus also has free run to do what it wants.
about nuclear bombs. i dont think they should ever be justified, they cause so much damage that the time it takes for the people and the world to heal is just not worth it. hell, it even fucks up human DNA and the environment... sorry but i cant justify that ever. but because we have the ability to make them and so many countries have them, i think that it is inevitable that we will have them, so we should just learn to better manage them.
this isn't related to the post, but i have to correct ur statement about viruses and unix. the reason that unix systems don't get viruses is not because people don't write linux viruses, but instead its how the OS is designed. on unix systems, ur have to log in as admin (root) everytime you want to make a change to the system, the only way a unix system can get a virus is if the software guesses your password or you install it. so if you install a virus, you simply deserve it. Windows however, when your logged on you have full privileges to edit anything, including system files, therefore, when you click an a page with virus, etc, the virus also has free run to do what it wants.
about nuclear bombs. i dont think they should ever be justified, they cause so much damage that the time it takes for the people and the world to heal is just not worth it. hell, it even fucks up human DNA and the environment... sorry but i cant justify that ever. but because we have the ability to make them and so many countries have them, i think that it is inevitable that we will have them, so we should just learn to better manage them.
超ﾈｵ★
I have gigs and gigs of space, 20mb or less on my hard disk is nothing. I also have 3 gigs of RAM. I am not running low on either anytime soon. The virus scanner also takes up a very minuscule amount of processing power, I have almost full processing for applications. Please tell me how this is a waste?
You know, both systems are good, and if you actually take care of your XP install your system will be fine. I don't see why Mac users have to constantly toss shit at Windows. I hate Mac users, they're so fucking snobby most of the time.
>けん
I'm sure once (if) Unix becomes more mainstream, virus coders will find a way to break it. They just don't have a reason to. If someone really wants to hack your system, they will find a way. Its just like people who spend time creating anti-piracy software, it may be secure for a month, but it will be cracked. Unix may be safe at the moment because of it's privileges and small user base, but if it ever gets as large as Windows, you can count on someone cracking it's defenses and writing a virus for it. There just really is no reason to do it at the moment and it is a waste of effort when there are millions of unprotected Windows users a virus would hassle.
I have gigs and gigs of space, 20mb or less on my hard disk is nothing. I also have 3 gigs of RAM. I am not running low on either anytime soon. The virus scanner also takes up a very minuscule amount of processing power, I have almost full processing for applications. Please tell me how this is a waste?
You know, both systems are good, and if you actually take care of your XP install your system will be fine. I don't see why Mac users have to constantly toss shit at Windows. I hate Mac users, they're so fucking snobby most of the time.
>けん
I'm sure once (if) Unix becomes more mainstream, virus coders will find a way to break it. They just don't have a reason to. If someone really wants to hack your system, they will find a way. Its just like people who spend time creating anti-piracy software, it may be secure for a month, but it will be cracked. Unix may be safe at the moment because of it's privileges and small user base, but if it ever gets as large as Windows, you can count on someone cracking it's defenses and writing a virus for it. There just really is no reason to do it at the moment and it is a waste of effort when there are millions of unprotected Windows users a virus would hassle.
＞Moonchilde
first, if your using unix and have virus software, you probably dont know much about unix. if u use unix, you dont need virus software.
and know, no matter how mainstream linux becomes, because of its foundational programming, the only (absolutely only) way for a virus to install itself on you computer is to crack your password, and that will not happen, unless of course you make a stupidly simple password. i would advise you to research unix's security foundations before giving false advice.
first, if your using unix and have virus software, you probably dont know much about unix. if u use unix, you dont need virus software.
and know, no matter how mainstream linux becomes, because of its foundational programming, the only (absolutely only) way for a virus to install itself on you computer is to crack your password, and that will not happen, unless of course you make a stupidly simple password. i would advise you to research unix's security foundations before giving false advice.
I never gave advice on Unix, Linux, or Mac. I don't use them, and haven't used Macs extensively. All I'm saying, is that if they become more mainstream there is a possibility (no matter how large or small) that people will write viruses for them and crack their security. There is no false advice here, in fact, not once did I offer any advice of any sort. That is merely speculation.
Nothing is absolute when it comes to security, this includes Unix.
Nothing is absolute when it comes to security, this includes Unix.
>fenomas
since its off-topic, i dont want to argue to much, but since u insist on being derogatory..., first, i do have knowledge in this field, and while moonchlide is right of course any system can be broke into, but because of the os's foundational differences its definiitely easier to install viruses on one OS compared to another.
btw, half of the people here post despite not having anything more than an opinion, so your commentary really isn't really that necassary.
since its off-topic, i dont want to argue to much, but since u insist on being derogatory..., first, i do have knowledge in this field, and while moonchlide is right of course any system can be broke into, but because of the os's foundational differences its definiitely easier to install viruses on one OS compared to another.
btw, half of the people here post despite not having anything more than an opinion, so your commentary really isn't really that necassary.
#52 けん
> the only (absolutely only) way for a virus to install itself on you computer is to crack your password
That's a demonstrably false statement. It belies a misunderstanding of how viruses work and how they spread (it doesn't typically involve password security). It's not a question of being derogatory.
> the only (absolutely only) way for a virus to install itself on you computer is to crack your password
That's a demonstrably false statement. It belies a misunderstanding of how viruses work and how they spread (it doesn't typically involve password security). It's not a question of being derogatory.
Virus creators = people with too much time on their hands. How about taking this topic to another tread. I am sure it could go on for 10 pages :) I hate stupid, wasteful, efforts... if a person is smart enough to make a virus they can also make something positive. Or are the people at Norton etc... the ones making the viruses in the first place so they can sell you the protection Software.
About “WW?”, it is understandable that the war has made an indelible impression on the mind or psyche of an entire generations . What is remarkable is that over half a century later, there are many people that say “never do the same things”!!
We usually want peace in the world and want to avoid a nuclear confrontation. And I hope that these comments that you all exchange in mixi here help to defuse tension over a likely nuclear arms races in the world.
I have a dream that one day we will live in the world where no nation and one will put a evil mind on others.
I have a dream that we will one day live in the world where it will be not justified to use military force to solve some worldwide problems between each countries.
We usually want peace in the world and want to avoid a nuclear confrontation. And I hope that these comments that you all exchange in mixi here help to defuse tension over a likely nuclear arms races in the world.
I have a dream that one day we will live in the world where no nation and one will put a evil mind on others.
I have a dream that we will one day live in the world where it will be not justified to use military force to solve some worldwide problems between each countries.
My 2 cents/pence/yen etc:
1. Is being Machiavellian moral? Ends justifies the means? For the greater good?
2. The second bomb was totally unnecessary, if any of them were necessary at all. The first made the point loud and clear, the second just showed how trigger happy the States were. Infact, did the first bomb have to destroy an entire city for a point to be made? Could the US have forced Japan to surrender by bombing something/where else?
3. I'd rather Australia have the abundant uranium resources than any other country save the Swiss ... if its got to be somewhere, I'd have it here.
4. Back to point 1. - if anti-nuclear arms proliferation were to succeed, what would fill the void to ensure peaceful stalemate continues? Human kindness? I doubt it. Something else will just come along.
Sorry, more questions than answers.
1. Is being Machiavellian moral? Ends justifies the means? For the greater good?
2. The second bomb was totally unnecessary, if any of them were necessary at all. The first made the point loud and clear, the second just showed how trigger happy the States were. Infact, did the first bomb have to destroy an entire city for a point to be made? Could the US have forced Japan to surrender by bombing something/where else?
3. I'd rather Australia have the abundant uranium resources than any other country save the Swiss ... if its got to be somewhere, I'd have it here.
4. Back to point 1. - if anti-nuclear arms proliferation were to succeed, what would fill the void to ensure peaceful stalemate continues? Human kindness? I doubt it. Something else will just come along.
Sorry, more questions than answers.
The use of nuclear weapons should never have been justified. Most people don't realize that allied fire bombing of Japanese cities killed more people and caused more destruction than the two nuclear weapons combined. And that Japan had almost no economy to continue waging the war prior to dropping both bombs.
In addition, Japan had already sent envoys to Russia to begin brokering a peace with the allies.
I firmly believe that the Truman administration dropped the bombs as a message more to the Soviets to stem their expansion in both Europe and Asia than to force the surrender of Japan. At worst one bomb should have been enough to finish Japan. Or even dropping it on a deserted island where it could have been observed would have worked. But I believe they also wanted to show their capacity to use the weapon as well. Which dropping two clearly demonstrated.
Nuclear weapons will be the end of humanity if ever used again.
In addition, Japan had already sent envoys to Russia to begin brokering a peace with the allies.
I firmly believe that the Truman administration dropped the bombs as a message more to the Soviets to stem their expansion in both Europe and Asia than to force the surrender of Japan. At worst one bomb should have been enough to finish Japan. Or even dropping it on a deserted island where it could have been observed would have worked. But I believe they also wanted to show their capacity to use the weapon as well. Which dropping two clearly demonstrated.
Nuclear weapons will be the end of humanity if ever used again.
Are those propaganda pictures supposed to scare me? Chernobyl was a disaster, but then again, do we know all the details on what happened?
TMI happened 30 mins from where I live. I know people inside, one of my friend's father worked there as manager during the "melt down." He said the media blew it way out of proportion, and as I said, if you knew how a reactor core works you'd know you really don't have much to worry about.
TMI happened 30 mins from where I live. I know people inside, one of my friend's father worked there as manager during the "melt down." He said the media blew it way out of proportion, and as I said, if you knew how a reactor core works you'd know you really don't have much to worry about.
I cant stand what the Us government does in recent.
why the 911 was happensd?
why they couldnt protect their selves?
supposing it just was the plan by some of the people who strongly wanna be occupaid all over the world.
is it stupid?never happen?its still happening right now in Iraq&Afghan!
Us armies are using new type of weapons。
why not?it could be nuclear bombs...
why the 911 was happensd?
why they couldnt protect their selves?
supposing it just was the plan by some of the people who strongly wanna be occupaid all over the world.
is it stupid?never happen?its still happening right now in Iraq&Afghan!
Us armies are using new type of weapons。
why not?it could be nuclear bombs...
Seal Pool - a nuclear reactor core is a huge metal container. It has 6 foot steel walls which the fission happens in. If there is a meltdown, all that happens is the steel will melt and cool over the uranium, sealing it. There is a lot of steel on one of those cores. You can also ram one with a train at full speed, and not even put a dent in it. They do not explode and they do not have uncontrolled fission reactions inside them. Its completely different from bombs. Most of the time, the damage is just to the core, unless you get something else outside of the core that causes a disaster, which is what happened at Chernobyl. But the actual reactor itself is usually safe.
All forms of power have some sort of disaster that could cause problems. Look at oil, you know how much more damage was done to the ocean because of oil spills?
All forms of power have some sort of disaster that could cause problems. Look at oil, you know how much more damage was done to the ocean because of oil spills?
Anyone throwing Chernobyl into a conversation about nuclear power needs to do more homework.
There is no debating that the effects of the Chernobyl accident are horrific. However, if you take a look at the situations surrounding the event, it is quite clear that Chernobyl cannot be used to demonstrate either the likelihood or damage that would result from an accident. To suggest otherwise is both ignorant and irresponsible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Let's pay special attention to the section labeled "The Accident."
There is no debating that the effects of the Chernobyl accident are horrific. However, if you take a look at the situations surrounding the event, it is quite clear that Chernobyl cannot be used to demonstrate either the likelihood or damage that would result from an accident. To suggest otherwise is both ignorant and irresponsible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Let's pay special attention to the section labeled "The Accident."
Well, America was as guilty as Japan, for bombing and killing civilians.
I haven't heard anyone sayig it's morally right. However, talking morally sounds naive to me. Some nations will use their moral justification if they have to turn on the fatal switch. Every single war has had some justification in our history.
Should the current (i.e. the post-WWII) international power distribution change, some unimaginables may happen. However, I'm optimistic that politicians across the borders are smart enough to think three steps ahead.
I believe nuclear weapons are effective tools to enhance a nation's negotiating position. America has proven it. I'm not being cynical, but it's the reality. I hope the presence of the nuclear power is just to represent themselves.
I haven't heard anyone sayig it's morally right. However, talking morally sounds naive to me. Some nations will use their moral justification if they have to turn on the fatal switch. Every single war has had some justification in our history.
Should the current (i.e. the post-WWII) international power distribution change, some unimaginables may happen. However, I'm optimistic that politicians across the borders are smart enough to think three steps ahead.
I believe nuclear weapons are effective tools to enhance a nation's negotiating position. America has proven it. I'm not being cynical, but it's the reality. I hope the presence of the nuclear power is just to represent themselves.
Indeed so. The bombs dropped on Japan were atomic bombs, in the 15-20 kiloton range. Modern nukes are hydrogen bombs, and are often around one megaton (1,000 kilotons). But a hydrogen bomb can, in theory, be made as large as you want - the largest tested so far was well over 50 megatons.
In other words, more than 4,000 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb.
In other words, more than 4,000 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb.
Hydrogen bombs are both scary and fascinating. You ever see those test vids of the stuff?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFXfMQ-vzQ
They're amazing! Yet, we know they're made for destructive purposes - so obviously we shouldn't use them. Plus, they're ecological disasters as well. Look up the Tsar Bomb or Big Ivan, it was a 55 or 57 megaton h-bomb. Its just massive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFXfMQ-vzQ
They're amazing! Yet, we know they're made for destructive purposes - so obviously we shouldn't use them. Plus, they're ecological disasters as well. Look up the Tsar Bomb or Big Ivan, it was a 55 or 57 megaton h-bomb. Its just massive.
Actually, guys, there is a lot of engineering behind nuclear reactors, so the chances of a Chernobyl or Tomsk disaster happening is slim. The main problems are fuel issues, but it's mainly human error that's the biggest problem.
And, in the past 50 years, not a whole lot has occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
But just the fact that Pakistan and India have nukes is enough to freak me the hell out.
And, in the past 50 years, not a whole lot has occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
But just the fact that Pakistan and India have nukes is enough to freak me the hell out.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
