• 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
What's it matter? If we don't, who's going to come and take them from us?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Gee, what a great argument you present. :roll:
Click to expand...

Your frivolous assertion that the atomic bombs were used "on civilians and for pretty much no reason, no less" doesn't merit an in depth argument.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Your frivolous assertion that the atomic bombs were used "on civilians and for pretty much no reason, no less" doesn't merit an in depth argument.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bother commenting, dude? :lol: Nothing better to do? Or is it just sort of unavoidable that they did indeed drop a nuke on a bunch of kids and it offends your sense of "my country right or wrong" to admit it?

'K then.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Then why did you bother commenting, dude? :lol: Nothing better to do? Or is it just sort of unavoidable that they did indeed drop a nuke on a bunch of kids and it offends your sense of "my country right or wrong" to admit it?

'K then.
Click to expand...

You can continue to misrepresent and mischaracterize what happened but it will not go unchallenged. I made no other assertion about your simplistic quote about my country.
 
The fact of the matter is ... 190 nations have agreed on an international mechanism (NPT) regarding nuclear weapons, nuclear research, technology transfer, and proliferation. The "rights" and responsibilities of each signatory nation regarding the aforementioned are articulated in the document Preamble and its XI Articles.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
 
Same stance as I have Iran or anyone else.

From a societal stand point, yes we have a "right" to a nuclear weapon because our treaties with regards to the world governing bodies allows for us to have it. Those who aren't covered by those treaties don't, and those who that treaty covers but doesn't allow to have them don't.

From an actual natural right stand point, no country has a "right" to a nuclear weapon, in large part because countries don't have "natural rights". Each country simply should be acting in it's best interest, the same as every other country. When those interests come into conflict then ultimatel one country is likely going to win out.
 
HonestJoe said:
From a legal standpoint, there doesn't seem to be anything prohibiting the US (or pretty much any other nation) having nuclear weapons.

I think an more interesting question is whether there could ever be a viable situation where it would be legally and morally acceptable to actually use them?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Be patient.
 
It's a moot point now. We have them, right or not.
 
No ?
Six say no , why .. Todays reading ..
Maybe into the future, a century or so, only the UN will have nukes .. in another century, they will rust into uselessness .. after science and religion work together and Islam is a thing of the past.
 
bubbabgone said:
Cowardly evasion? Not if you think about what's going on right now.
Click to expand...
Which suggests you do think there is a viable situation where it would be legally and morally acceptable for the USA use it's nuclear weapons but weren't willing to actually say so because you know you'd be challenged to defend that opinion. Hence cowardly. :)
 
HonestJoe said:
Which suggests you do think there is a viable situation where it would be legally and morally acceptable for the USA use it's nuclear weapons but weren't willing to actually say so because you know you'd be challenged to defend that opinion. Hence cowardly. :)
Click to expand...

Saying there could never be such a situation for us (or anyone else) is cowardly by it's nihilism.
Is that your position?
 
bubbabgone said:
Saying there could never be such a situation for us (or anyone else) is cowardly by it's nihilism.
Is that your position?
Click to expand...
I personally can't conceive of such a situation but I'm open to answers. I do believe that people who support the idea of us having nuclear weapons have a responsibility to establish the kind of situations they'd see them being used.

I don't see how my position is nihilism - I'm putting value on things like human life and moral principles. If anything supporting the use of nuclear weapons is closer to nihilistic since mutually assured destruction does would indeed render everything pretty meaningless.
 
Hell yes we should have nukes, and not only that, we should be the only ones. And we should continue work to see to it that the least amount of countries have them. All this fairness talk is pure bull****, and liable to get us killed. I'm not afraid to say that I don't care if any other country has a single bullet, as long as we do.
 
American said:
Hell yes we should have nukes, and not only that, we should be the only ones. And we should continue work to see to it that the least amount of countries have them. All this fairness talk is pure bull****, and liable to get us killed. I'm not afraid to say that I don't care if any other country has a single bullet, as long as we do.
Click to expand...

USA can bomb me one day ?
 
American said:
We just might if you don't behave. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

okay I will give myself up ,man :mrgreen: .but lets imagine what would happen if USA was obtained by the evil islamists one day .they would bomb all of us .thats why such weapons are dangerous.
 
Medusa said:
okay I will give myself up ,man :mrgreen: .but lets imagine what would happen if USA was obtained by the evil islamists one day .they would bomb all of us .thats why such weapons are dangerous.
Click to expand...

All us Americans would move in to Mosques. :lol:
 
HonestJoe said:
I personally can't conceive of such a situation but I'm open to answers. I do believe that people who support the idea of us having nuclear weapons have a responsibility to establish the kind of situations they'd see them being used.

I don't see how my position is nihilism - I'm putting value on things like human life and moral principles. If anything supporting the use of nuclear weapons is closer to nihilistic since mutually assured destruction does would indeed render everything pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...

It ain't mutually assured destruction if Party A is stopping Party B from getting a nuke because Party A doesn't want to be obliterated by Party B who doesn't have that nuke yet.
But it wouldn't have to come to that if Party C was serious about stopping Party B from getting that nuke.
And while a nuke isn't the only way to stop Party B, getting foolishly screwed over in a deal is definitely not an acceptable alternative.

Besides, using a tactical nuke doesn't mean a mushroom cloud but it does tend to leave a memory.
 
bubbabgone said:
It ain't mutually assured destruction if Party A is stopping Party B from getting a nuke because Party A doesn't want to be obliterated by Party B who doesn't have that nuke yet.
Click to expand...
Are you proposing that as a situation where it would be morally and legally acceptable to use nuclear weapons? It needs the details filling out a little.

bubbabgone said:
Besides, using a tactical nuke doesn't mean a mushroom cloud but it does tend to leave a memory.
Click to expand...
Tactical weapons would generally be used on a battle field. Are you also proposing a situation on the basis of an established conflict or a situation involving an undeclared attack against a sovereign state?
 
HonestJoe said:
Are you proposing that as a situation where it would be morally and legally acceptable to use nuclear weapons? It needs the details filling out a little.

Tactical weapons would generally be used on a battle field. Are you also proposing a situation on the basis of an established conflict or a situation involving an undeclared attack against a sovereign state?
Click to expand...

What do you think I was talking about?
And tactical weapons are used, for example, against a hardened, reinforced target.
Something like, for example, an underground nuclear centrifuge site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom