• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People

Do nuclear bombs kill people?

  • Total voters
    28
T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
 
Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Actually, it's the detonation, shock wave, and fallout that kills people. A nuclear warhead just sitting there is only a potential threat.
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

TheDemSocialist said:
Simple question:
Do nuclear bombs kill people?
Click to expand...



So where exactly are you going with this? Obviously there is more to your intentions...
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Not always.

Sometimes you just turn into a deformed zombie.
 
Why the [RIP] tag? Meant to post some pics of dead kids to further the political nonsense? It's time to bust out the abomb pics? What, are we running out of disabled dying vets to pump this week's message?
 
ecofarm said:
Why the [RIP] tag? Meant to post some pics of dead kids to further the political nonsense? It's time to bust out the abomb pics? What, are we running out of disabled dying vets to pump this week's message?
Click to expand...

It means this thread needs to be killed because i ****ed up the poll part
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

No, people kill people! Amirite?

Serious answer: Yes, nuclear weapons kill people, but, in order for them to kill people, other people have to use them. In other words, like guns, they don't act on their own (unless there's some extreme malfunction). On the contrary, in order to do anything at all, nukes have to be MADE to act by human beings or machines/computers created by human beings.

Now, those facts can have many implications and raise a lot of questions. Is it okay to have nukes if we just ensure that those around them are responsible? What should we do to make sure those with access to nukes act responsibly? Should we get rid of nukes out of fear people won't act responsibility? And so on. The answers to those questions depends on who you ask.
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Stupidity kills more people than nuclear warheads.
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

ThePlayDrive said:
No, people kill people! Amirite?

Serious answer: Yes, nuclear weapons kill people, but, in order for them to kill people, other people have to use them. In other words, like guns, they don't act on their own (unless there's some extreme malfunction). On the contrary, in order to do anything at all, nukes have to be MADE to act by human beings or machines/computers created by human beings.

Now, those facts can have many implications and raise a lot of questions. Is it okay to have nukes if we just ensure that those around them are responsible? What should we do to make sure those with access to nukes act responsibly? Should we get rid of nukes out of fear people won't act responsibility? And so on. The answers to those questions depends on who you ask.
Click to expand...


Figured it was something like that.

Look, this really just isn't a good comparison, as has been pointed out many times.

Nuclear bombs are strategic weapons systems, with a large-scale area effect and the potential to affect people many miles away from the blast radius via fallout or electromagnetic pulse or other effects. It is impossible to use a nuke to target an individual enemy; it is all but impossible to maintain or use nuclear weapons without a supporting organization of thousands of people; it is all but impossible to use a nuke without inflicting thousands or millions of injuries and deaths including civilian "collateral damage". Imagining a legitimate purpose for nukes other than destroying other nations and their civilian populations is a stretch.

Guns, by comparison, are personal weapons that are capable of targeting individual enemies and are not typically area-effect weapons. They can be used by an individual for legitimate purposes such as self-defense and sport. They do not require a massive infrastructure for maintenance and deployment.

It is literally a firecrackers vs atom-bombs comparison that makes apples and oranges look identical.
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Moderator's Warning:
Dupe threads merged. RIP tag was a mistake and has been removed.
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Goshin said:
Figured it was something like that.

Look, this really just isn't a good comparison, as has been pointed out many times.

Nuclear bombs are strategic weapons systems, with a large-scale area effect and the potential to affect people many miles away from the blast radius via fallout or electromagnetic pulse or other effects. It is impossible to use a nuke to target an individual enemy; it is all but impossible to maintain or use nuclear weapons without a supporting organization of thousands of people; it is all but impossible to use a nuke without inflicting thousands or millions of injuries and deaths including civilian "collateral damage". Imagining a legitimate purpose for nukes other than destroying other nations and their civilian populations is a stretch.

Guns, by comparison, are personal weapons that are capable of targeting individual enemies and are not typically area-effect weapons. They can be used by an individual for legitimate purposes such as self-defense and sport. They do not require a massive infrastructure for maintenance and deployment.

It is literally a firecrackers vs atom-bombs comparison that makes apples and oranges look identical.
Click to expand...

It's also a useful tool to confuse the anti-gun nuts who think that guns walk around with a mind of their own and fire at people, or that everyone carrying a gun is a mass murderer waiting to happen.
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

Goshin said:
Figured it was something like that.

Look, this really just isn't a good comparison, as has been pointed out many times.

Nuclear bombs are strategic weapons systems, with a large-scale area effect and the potential to affect people many miles away from the blast radius via fallout or electromagnetic pulse or other effects. It is impossible to use a nuke to target an individual enemy; it is all but impossible to maintain or use nuclear weapons without a supporting organization of thousands of people; it is all but impossible to use a nuke without inflicting thousands or millions of injuries and deaths including civilian "collateral damage". Imagining a legitimate purpose for nukes other than destroying other nations and their civilian populations is a stretch.

Guns, by comparison, are personal weapons that are capable of targeting individual enemies and are not typically area-effect weapons. They can be used by an individual for legitimate purposes such as self-defense and sport. They do not require a massive infrastructure for maintenance and deployment.

It is literally a firecrackers vs atom-bombs comparison that makes apples and oranges look identical.
Click to expand...
It's not a good comparison for the entirety of the gun issue for the reasons you stated among others. However, it is a good comparison for specific similarities that nuclear weapons and guns have. For example, both guns and nukes are inanimate weapons. One of the most common pro-gun arguments is that because guns are inanimate, they, in and of themselves, aren't a danger to the population. Since nukes are also inanimate weapons, asking if those inanimate weapons "kill people" is a means of determining how people feel about the danger of inanimate objects by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates. Even though they aren't weapons, the same limited comparison could be made with other inanimate objects like cars, airplanes and so on.

It's also a good limited comparison in a way that I suspect TDS didn't mean to make. The safe use of guns and nuclear weapons both depend on the responsibility of human beings. Therefore, in both cases, we have to ask ourselves, "Can we trust humans to act responsibly enough to have the weapons?" One of the most common anti-gun arguments is that people aren't responsible enough to have weapons. Since nukes also require people to act responsibly, asking if its okay for countries to have nukes would be a way of determining how people feel about the role of responsibility in owning weapons by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates.

No analogy is perfect, but perfect comparisons are not the function of analogies. People use them to draw limited comparisons between specific aspects of different ideas.
 
Ray410 said:
You fk up every thread you post on.
Click to expand...

oh my my my
2updamr.jpg
 
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Kill People?

ThePlayDrive said:
It's not a good comparison for the entirety of the gun issue for the reasons you stated among others. However, it is a good comparison for specific similarities that nuclear weapons and guns have. For example, both guns and nukes are inanimate weapons. One of the most common pro-gun arguments is that because guns are inanimate, they, in and of themselves, aren't a danger to the population. Since nukes are also inanimate weapons, asking if those inanimate weapons "kill people" is a means of determining how people feel about the danger of inanimate objects by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates. Even though they aren't weapons, the same limited comparison could be made with other inanimate objects like cars, airplanes and so on.

It's also a good limited comparison in a way that I suspect TDS didn't mean to make. The safe use of guns and nuclear weapons both depend on the responsibility of human beings. Therefore, in both cases, we have to ask ourselves, "Can we trust humans to act responsibly enough to have the weapons?" One of the most common anti-gun arguments is that people aren't responsible enough to have weapons. Since nukes also require people to act responsibly, asking if its okay for countries to have nukes would be a way of determining how people feel about the role of responsibility in owning weapons by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates.

No analogy is perfect, but perfect comparisons are not the function of analogies. People use them to draw limited comparisons between specific aspects of different ideas.
Click to expand...



Okay. I still see the two as very difficult to compare, though, even in a limited fashion. For example, a nuke includes a variety of dangerous components. There are explosives, which if wrongly stored or handled could become unstable and self-detonate. There are nuclear materials that are radioactive and very toxic, and require special handling to avoid injury to anyone exposed to them. Plutonium, in particular, is one of the most incredibly toxic substances in existence.

One also has to consider the degree of disaster involved if the weapon is misused. A mishandled gun can injure or kill someone yes... in certain unusual circumstances someone with ill intent may be able to use a gun to kill dozens of people.

Misuse or nefarious use of a nuke can readily result in the death or injury of hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions.

There's also the issue that a nuke has no legitimate use in private hands... whereas firearms do: self-defense being the most important. Since it is impossible to make all weapons disappear (guns alone even, but also knives and bludgeons and bows and all the other things people killed people with before guns were invented), the need for personal arms for self-defense is a strong argument, whereas there simply IS no argument for the private personal possession of nuclear weapons, is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom