Login/Sign Up




Nuclear Weapons
Other

thales
Aug 02, 2007
8 votes
6 debaters
4
1


+ Add Argument

1
Using nuclear weapons to definitively end an ugly war is humane


dueonmaplestreet
Aug 03, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes, I totally agree that burning the shadows of victims onto the sidewalk is humane. So is the melting of their flesh like wax off a candle. So is the lasting effect and sickness of those that weren't lucky enough to die outright. Plus just destroying a few hundred thousand souls indiscriminately is totally humane. I also don't have a problem with the future generations born to the ones who didn't die but just got incredibly sick and poisoned, they should have to pay too, and so should their children! Oh, and don't forget what you'll be doing to the land. (For those of you who don't know this is sarcastic, I'm sorry. Cuz this is so much sarcasm)

 
juggernaut
Aug 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Nooclur!!!

 
thales
Aug 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

So then you'd be all for it if we knew it would be just the one?

Between you and due, I'm starting to think I must have missed the "Opposite Day" memo....

 
thales
Aug 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

With all due respect, what you think is humane seems to be the crux of the question at hand.

 
cbart95
Aug 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Well why did you raise the Hiroshima spectre then,if not to muddy the waters and "prove your Hate America" case?

You coy demurrers to the contrary, your mean petty controlling habits reveal a mean streak that goes to the bone as you toy with honest souls in the guise of what you call debate and advance your agenda of Hatred for the USA.

 
thales
Aug 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

That would be mine. And it wasn't an ambush.

 
cbart95
Aug 05, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Whether I support nuclear as a means of ending a war or not is immaterial...I don't sit at the trigger switch. It has happened. Most who were responsible appeared to regret it.

But that's really not the point.

Your insinuations lead one to believe that you are claiming that our government intends to use nuclear weapons on "innocents" sometime soon.

That is an outrageous mischaracterization of our country and it's leaders. A deliberate,underhanded assault on our national integrity and a ongoing enemy propaganda ploy to discredit the brave men and women defending freedom around this world.

The sort of assualt one expects from enemy agents.

 
cbart95
Aug 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Touched,outraged,curious.

Dilatantism apparently knows no bounds in it's dewy-eyed wonder at the miracle of warfare...the wonder of utter and total ignorance of the scale of horror war actually involves.

it's a coffee shop chat subject to score points on with cyber pals in gay debate...ta ta! Score one for me again!

What fun I'm having!... being so precocious!

Watch it Buddy! I could get serious any second now. But first a sip of latte'.

(You still can't write your name in the snow ,Molly.)

 
+ Add Argument

7
The ugly war is still better than the damage from a nuclear attack


vancam
Aug 03, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
In 1945 I think a nuclear attack 'might' have been humane. Then it did stop a war and the death toll was most likely less than a continuation of the war.

However in these days with the amount of nuclear weaponary around it would NOT be humane. A nuclear strike on nearly any sovereign state in the world would provoke a proportionate response.

Subsequently the death toll would be much higher than a continued conflict. Especially since what we call conventional war today gives us much lower death tolls.

I would also like to add that the reason I say 'might' in the first sentance is because so much evidence now suggests that Japan had already tried to surrender before either nuclear weapon was dropped and the purpose for dropping them was just to threaten the USSR in advance of the up coming cold war.

So all those civilians were killed just to show off.

 
vancam
Aug 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

No I'm certainly not for nuclear war of any kind. But I simply must be open minded enough to validate what happened in 1945 (whether I think it was nessecary or humane is not the question).

My point is that there can be no singular strike today. Everyone has their own warheads or/and allies which subsequently make tactical nuclear warfare a null point.



 
vancam
Aug 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

in my mind it is inhumane to kill anyone in any manner.

The reason I left the question open was that I wouldn't be drawn into a debate about whether it was right or wrong for America to nuke Japan in 1945 but instead focus on the futility of doing something like that now.

I guess I just wanted to avoid being ambushed by tons of right wingers who are happy to believe that what happened in 1945 was at all justified.

It wasn't.

 
vancam
Aug 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

I can see that it might be weak of me but truely what i wanted to do was focus my argument on the present and not the mistakes of the past.

 
thales
Aug 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

Shall we take this to mean that you support nuclear warfare as a method of ending a conventional war?

 
vancam
Aug 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

Yawn, are you going to stop following me around?

1. I raised the 1945 double nuclear strikes because they are the only presecedents in the world.

2. I don't hate America. I live here, a lot of my dearest relationships are here and plently of my fondest memories.



 
vancam
Aug 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

3. I didn't start this debate so perhaps you want to start whining in someone elses ear.

 
thales
Aug 05, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

"Enemy agents"? I'm touched.

Oh, no, wait--I'm actually outraged at this mischaracterization of my question. Does "outrage" imply surprise? I'm definitely something that does NOT imply surprise.

It frankly hadn't occurred to me that the US might use nuclear weapons anytime soon. We're not the only ones who have the things, you know.

I was more curious to know if people who support the use of nukes back then (see the Iran/carpet debate) would still support them without knowing which side of the hypothetical war they would get to be on. Funny how few showed up for THAT scenario....

 
ces116
May 03, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

It doesnt matter whether you are in a position of authority or not. You entered this debate for the soul purpose voicing your opinion on nuclear weapons. Instead you are insinuating communism on your fellow american citizens. this invalidates your argument completely


 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

electroshock therapy abortion america animals Art baby battle Bush comics convinceme Death debate debates Dog economics ect ethics evil faceoff Fight gender global warming God health history humans internet Iran Iraq Islam Jesus love management marijuana men money music peace people philosophy politics pollution President psychology religion religon Sex society Spirituality suicide technology terrorism the us vancam vs War Women world Yes