• 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!

Does USA have the right to have atomic bombs ?

Does USA have the right to have atomic bombs ?YY


  • Total voters
    52
"Atomic bomb" is a long-standing term meaning any sort of nuclear weapon. It's a bit old fashioned these days, but I'm pretty sure it was used in that context in the poll. And certainly we have a right to have them because there is no law or principle that denies us the ability to have them on either moral or practical grounds.

It would have been very unpleasant for us had we not defeated Germany before they built a working atomic bomb. And we were then blessed by a lot of German brain power that enabled us to complete a working bomb before Japan got their nuclear program out of the laboratory stage. A working bomb in the hands of the Japanese prior to the end of WWII would also have been a very grim scenario for the USA. And if we had not built sufficient nuclear weapons to achieve deterrent parity with the USSR soon after WWII ended, the world might be a very different place, and not in a good way, than what it is.

The world is a much safer place because the USA has a sufficient nuclear arsenal and ability to use it on very short notice.

I agree with you, with a couple exceptions. The Manhattan Project benefited from the contributions of some European refugees, but American physicists, chemists, and other scientists were no less skilled that those from other countries. If "German brain power" had been that important, the Germans should have developed the atom bomb first, just as they were the first to develop a ballistic missile. Also, the industrial power of the U.S. had a lot to do with developing the bomb. Japan was too strapped by other demands to muster the enormous resources needed.

The U.S. did not have parity with the USSR after WWII, but absolute superiority. By the times of the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, the U.S. had a stockpile of about 200 bombs. During the first four years after the war, the U.S. could have, if it had wanted, dictated terms to any nation in the world--including the USSR. America could have forbidden any other nation to have the bomb, and enforced the ban with the threat of nuclear attack. The fact it had already shown its willingness to use atom bombs would have made that threat pretty credible.
 
Then it would appear that you DON'T have the ability to stop them. I'm intrigued to know how you think you would prevent them getting one even if you did have the will to do so. I think sanctions and boycotts really wouldn't be sufficient.

I didn't say me, I said we, as in the US.

How do we stop them, easy, kill every one of the goat ****ing mother****ers.
 
I didn't say me, I said we, as in the US.

How do we stop them, easy, kill every one of the goat ****ing mother****ers.

Yeah, good answer. Do a Hiroshima and Nagasaki on them.
 
I didn't say me, I said we, as in the US.

How do we stop them, easy, kill every one of the goat ****ing mother****ers.

I see genocide is in your DNA. Fortunately I don't think even your nuttiest tea party pols are quite that extreme.
 
Damned straight. Teach them to follow the drug induced hallucinations of a half-breed, so called prophet that is the son of a whore and a pig.

How many cups of coffee have you had today dude. How is it that the Iranian population that you'd like to nuke is responsible for the actions of the Ayatollahs, hmm?
 
I agree with you, with a couple exceptions. The Manhattan Project benefited from the contributions of some European refugees, but American physicists, chemists, and other scientists were no less skilled that those from other countries. If "German brain power" had been that important, the Germans should have developed the atom bomb first, just as they were the first to develop a ballistic missile. Also, the industrial power of the U.S. had a lot to do with developing the bomb. Japan was too strapped by other demands to muster the enormous resources needed.

The U.S. did not have parity with the USSR after WWII, but absolute superiority. By the times of the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, the U.S. had a stockpile of about 200 bombs. During the first four years after the war, the U.S. could have, if it had wanted, dictated terms to any nation in the world--including the USSR. America could have forbidden any other nation to have the bomb, and enforced the ban with the threat of nuclear attack. The fact it had already shown its willingness to use atom bombs would have made that threat pretty credible.

I don't mean to diminish the contributions of our own scientists, physicists, etc. And I did misspeak with an implication that it was after Germany surrendered to the allies that the German brainpower factored in. But many of the notable members of the Manhattan project were Germans who had escaped Hitler's Germany, most especially Jewish physicists, scientists, etc. Albert Einstein who sounded the alarm to FDR about Germany's A-bomb project was among those German immigrants just prior to WWII and of course his theories were instrumental in development of such a weapon. But he was not involved with the Manhattan project because our government did not trust him. (Einstein did not want an A-bomb developed but realistically knew that if Germany got one before the USA did, it would not end well.)

Also I probably left the impression that it was immediately after WWII that Russia began its nuclear proliferation. But by the 1950's American school children were doing duck and cover drills and people were building bomb shelters because of the nuclear threat the USSR presented. If the USA had not had sufficient deterrent capabilities, that too might not have ended well.

The fact is the knowledge to build the bomb is out there and that genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Disarmament is no longer and option for the world because there will always be evil men with ambitions of achieving great power. The best we can hope for is that the good guys will remain the stronger.
 
How many cups of coffee have you had today dude. How is it that the Iranian population that you'd like to nuke is responsible for the actions of the Ayatollahs, hmm?

I quit drinking caffeine/coffee more than a year ago.

What part? Every one that is not actively trying to overthrow the mother****ers. Failure to act makes someone just as guilty as those whom they choose not to act against.

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing--Edmund Burke.
 
I see genocide is in your DNA. Fortunately I don't think even your nuttiest tea party pols are quite that extreme.

Genocide would be killing everyone of a particular race. Is Iran the totality of a particular race? Or even a particular religion?
 
Genocide would be killing everyone of a particular race. Is Iran the totality of a particular race? Or even a particular religion?

When you're proposing to kill 78 million people, the semantics of genocide are pretty irrelevant.
 
I quit drinking caffeine/coffee more than a year ago.

What part? Every one that is not actively trying to overthrow the mother****ers. Failure to act makes someone just as guilty as those whom they choose not to act against.

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing--Edmund Burke.

Easy for you to say. You don't live in Iran.
 
When you're proposing to kill 78 million people, the semantics of genocide are pretty irrelevant.

So, to spare those 78 million, we should allow their leaders to achieve the means to kill billions? They have already shown they have the will to do it.

When someone is trying to kill you, you get up early and kill them first.
 
So, to spare those 78 million, we should allow their leaders to achieve the means to kill billions? They have already shown they have the will to do it.
No, they haven't. Only one nation has shown that it has the will to use nuclear weapons, and it isn't Iran.

When someone is trying to kill you, you get up early and kill them first.
The self-justification of psychopaths the world over.
 
So, to spare those 78 million, we should allow their leaders to achieve the means to kill billions? They have already shown they have the will to do it.

When someone is trying to kill you, you get up early and kill them first.

Some of us haven't bought into the scaredy cat tactics that were used on us a dozen years ago. Stop living in fear. Promote normal relations with Iran and watch things begin to shape up. Do you think that the ayatollahs are suffering under our sanctions. Do you think they had to switch to black angus steak from Kobie because of them. Hopefully we can keep the mouth breathing knuckle draggers away from our foreign policy.
 
True. But given only one bullet and a choice between an Ayatollah and leader of the DNC, I would have lunch with the Ayatollah after firing that one bullet.

That's sick dude, but not one bit surprising to me.
 
I don't really think anyone has the "right" to wipe out entire populations of people, or push their weight around with threats of same.

Furthermore, I find it utterly insane that some people think the only country that can be "trusted" with them is also the only country to ever use them (on civilians and for pretty much no reason, no less) and also a country that has nearly bombed its own people on numerous occasions through simple carelessness.

In point of historical fact, there is no country with a worse track record than the US. Of the current countries that have nukes, the US is to be trusted the least.

Pretty much fiction saying "pretty much for no reason".
 
No, they haven't. Only one nation has shown that it has the will to use nuclear weapons, and it isn't Iran.

The self-justification of psychopaths the world over.

Only because those psychopaths haven't had the means.

psychopaths need no justification, if they did, they wouldn't be psychopaths.
 
Some of us haven't bought into the scaredy cat tactics that were used on us a dozen years ago. Stop living in fear. Promote normal relations with Iran and watch things begin to shape up. Do you think that the ayatollahs are suffering under our sanctions. Do you think they had to switch to black angus steak from Kobie because of them. Hopefully we can keep the mouth breathing knuckle draggers away from our foreign policy.

They were eating Kobie? Why do I still see post from him.

How many times have you been to the middle east? How many times have you interacted with these people? How many years have you spent studying them as an enemy? How much access have you had to intelligence estimates?

I do not fear them, I know them. I have stood before them before and if I was able would gladly face them again.
 
They were eating Kobie? Why do I still see post from him.

How many times have you been to the middle east? How many times have you interacted with these people? How many years have you spent studying them as an enemy? How much access have you had to intelligence estimates?

I do not fear them, I know them. I have stood before them before and if I was able would gladly face them again.

Before those folk running the country, or it's fine citizenry that isn't the evil you claim them to be. Your position is dangerous, thank god your fingers aren't in our foreign policy. Your mentality would destroy the world. And no, I haven't studied Iran as an enemy. I consider Iran to be as good and as bad as any country that has been interfering in her internal affairs for a very long time now.
 
Before those folk running the country, or it's fine citizenry that isn't the evil you claim them to be. Your position is dangerous, thank god your fingers aren't in our foreign policy. Your mentality would destroy the world. And no, I haven't studied Iran as an enemy. I consider Iran to be as good and as bad as any country that has been interfering in her internal affairs for a very long time now.

You must be one of the happiest people on earth.
 
Of course, when it comes to what rights a nation has that's usually dictated by more powerful nations that would threaten them for obtaining that or treaties nations ratify. To my knowledge the NPT doesn't ban the US from having nuclear weapons, and as the strongest nation in the Western World another nation isn't going to have the strength to force us from having them, not to mention the fact that the US developed them first.
 
Back
Top Bottom