Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Enlightenment (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=17)
-- Nuclear Holocaust (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2237)

Nuclear Holocaust

well tell us about wat u think about nuclear arms and do u think a nuclear holocaust will ever happen?? and if yes who could start it?

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

personally i think it will happen and that some crazy terrorist group will do it. then god only knows wats goin to be left.

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

Yes, it will definatly happen, its just a question of when. One of the possible effects of Nuclear Holocaust would be something that is termed as Nuclear Winter. Far worse than a nuclear war itself, it would quite possibly destroy all life on earth, evaporate the oceans, and basicly turn the earth into a mars.
If a nuclear war happens, you can be damn sure i would have already bought some cyanide pills . Im sure as hell not going to live into a nuclear blasted world ;)

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

you forget dis-armed nuclear warheads. terrorists/factions can get their hands on one and still be able to detonate it; andddd i know there's plenty of dis-armed warheads.

disarmed isn't like just taking out the bullet of the gun. It's more like dismantling i believe.....?, so they'd have to build it again to a certain degree.

Thats it, how bout the whole world gives all their nukes to the US so we can safely keep a safe watch on them in Yuca mountain aww yeah haha jp. That'd be safest heheh.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

..Its just a matter of time :omg:

__________________

Props To Huby

by the time a terrorist group gets their hand on any type of nuclear weapon, we'll already have bigger, super weapons that make nukes look like cap guns.

hell, we probably already do. the public barely knew anything about the a-bomb till a few weeks (or days) before it was dropped, except that it would win the war.

what do you think the government has now? id like to see what goes on in Area 51, if you ask me.

Actually on that topic, my debate coach was tleling me about a new weapon that the using is trying to develop called Counter-Force or something like that.
Basiclly...it splits the earth in half and is used "only" as a last-resort weapon.

Yes and Dave is right. "Disarm" as they call it is actually more of a dismantling of weapons. The US gov't stores the parts in seperate locations and when war comes along, they fit them back together to put into commision.

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

you guys are scaring me...

......... guess what is behind my school..... hills...... guess what's "hidden" there.... a naval weapons station..... they say it's been empty for years...... whoever "they" is.... but everyone thinks otherwise.......................

the thing is, i have faith that the US isn't stupid enough to go through with retalliation through nuclear devices (regardless if the first-strike on us was by nukes). We know it'll end bad, and essentially if we second-strike back with nukes the victimized country will be compelled to strike back with nukes as well (i'm generalizing their mentality i know), and if they can't get us, they may go regional which would still be a grave threat.

Say a terrorist attacks the US with nukes, i don't think we'll nuke them back, cause it's absurd and everyone knows that. We'll get them back with hellafied conventional forces, that and it'd be a fair assumption that almost the rest of the world would be on the side of the victim of a nuke. So i'd say nuclear holocaust isn't inevitable, even if first strike occurs. It depends on the reaction of the receivers, and hopefully they'll be smart enough not to react foolishly (yeah, even when 25 million people are dead, we still need to think rationally about it).

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

i remember hearing what Reagan said in a response to a question about an accidental launch: "Well, we'll just turn them off...."

(If you're confused: You can't turn off nuclear warheads that are already launched, missile manufacters are afraid that some hacker would go into the system and shut off the retalitory missile.)


The last couple republican presidents have been like whoa...man, read up on some of this stuff. Well, George Bush senior can be an exeption, he was okay, but he still destroyed our economy.

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

shit, a prodigy person can make a nuke with the necessary items/materials. when he/she does build one, the person is most possibly considered a 'terrorist' due to the fact no one questions why he built it, but the potential of building one.

nuclear weapons are something to be afraid of...
but it's really not that easy to make a nuclear weapon
people talk about how terrorists will get a hold of one, and we should be afraid of that. but it's really not as easy as everyone says. It still is something to be afraid of though, no doubt.

__________________
word is bond

i'll just repost the thing i wrote in the Debate forum on the topic of nukes seeing as this topic is starting to go into terrorism

On the general subject of nuclear weapons, i believe that disarmament and treaty signing is just a whole bunch of shit that would not get rid of the nuclear threat in the world.
The main concern nowadays is with terrorism and their factor in using nukes. Now, with the deterioration of the russian nuclear missile program and because of the intense depression that russia is going through, many of the former-soviet scientists are underpaid, and most are in a state of poverty. Thus, terrorists, who have a fair amount of funding from middle-eastern states such as IRaq or Iran, are able to pay these scientists that are, for the most part, desperate to feed their families. I remember reading a card with a quote by a russian scientist basiclly sayin that, "What do I care that a country in the west would get attacked with a nuclear bomb? I have kids to feed, immediate problems that i have to fix now, and because these terrorists are offering me a solution, i'll take it."
Thus, on to my main point, policy actions such as CTBT or Disarm only affect the state of the "lawful" world. It does nothing to prevent what happens underneath the surface, in relation to rogue groups and terrorists. In fact, i believe that if someone wrote an aff on that, it would be highly successful because for the most part, it is true. It is hard fact. Outlaw organizations that do not submit to international law are the most dangerous ones out there and are quite capable of obtaining a nuclear weapon and detonating it.

IMO, that is the threat in the world today, and the most realistic.

Onto the subject of deterrance and morality. The moral kritik tied into the Disarm aff is a whole bunch of shit also =). First off, morals are something that is never constant, it is a social construct used to explain and personalize the idea of justice. however, "morality" for each person is different. That is why there is disagreement, and that is also why using morality as an argument is such a problem. Also, I have a Firebaud (or something) card that basiclly states that by forcing morals on someone through discourse such as the 1ac, one is commiting the worst evil in the world by snuffing out true freedom of ideas and beliefs and making others conform to such a standard. Cool counter-kritik to use =)

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

thats rite 2001-2002 subject of debate was on weapons on mass destruction but i never heard a plan that was realistic. (im a judge )

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

man we have all these nukes pointed at each other. i wish some aliens would try to invade earth so we can point our nukes at THEM. :satisfy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by huby40
man we have all these nukes pointed at each other. i wish some aliens would try to invade earth so we can point our nukes at THEM. :satisfy:

---

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless