• 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
I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to speculate. I'm just after a straight answer to my question.


What was your question?
Can the use of any type of nuclear weapon ever be justified?
Is that it?
Then ... yes.
Do you think it can?
 
Only if you'd rather Russia and China didn't conquer the world.

:mrgreen: .I would easily convert to communism (in today's World ,russianism .in fact I really dont want any country to have it
 
Wtf!!!! The only country to have ever used them, and on a civilian target to boot, gets your vote of legitimacy, I never thought that would make me wish for a god. Jesus Christ, can such freaks really exist?

You have to keep that in context...
 
A more important question is; is the NSA's new proposed sperm count database Constitutional?











j/k
 
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.

HYpothetically, how would you enforce that in terms of our allies? Would you actively seek to prevent countries like UK, Canada, France etc getting hold of nukes??
 
Countries having rights is a pretty stupid idea.
 
What was your question?
Can the use of any type of nuclear weapon ever be justified?
No, my question was in what viable situation would it be legally and morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. I also expect follow-up discussion on any (serious) answer because my whole point is this areas isn't easy or straight forwards (and because this is a discussion forum, not a Q&A).
 
HYpothetically, how would you enforce that in terms of our allies? Would you actively seek to prevent countries like UK, Canada, France etc getting hold of nukes??

Hypothetically was how I meant my post. The whole question of having a "right" to a nuke is silly actually.
 
Hypothetically was how I meant my post. The whole question of having a "right" to a nuke is silly actually.

because we already know the answer :roll:
 
No, my question was in what viable situation would it be legally and morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. I also expect follow-up discussion on any (serious) answer because my whole point is this areas isn't easy or straight forwards (and because this is a discussion forum, not a Q&A).

I answered seriously ... I said yes and I gave an example that paralleled what's happening now in the M.E.
I general terms, if it's a question of survival.

If we had an operational nuke in the early 40's would it have been legally and morally justifiable to drop it on Hitler's head as he was sweeping through Europe?
If a Country has continually indicated they intend to destroy a neighbor and are developing a nuclear weapon in reinforced underground facilities, is it legally and morally justifiable to use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy them?
Why would dropping 100 500lb bombs be okay but a small yield tactical nuke not?

You can't discuss something by ruling out Q & A.
 
I answered seriously ... I said yes and I gave an example that paralleled what's happening now in the M.E.
I general terms, if it's a question of survival.
Does Iran have the right to take the same view of Israel or the USA?

If we had an operational nuke in the early 40's would it have been legally and morally justifiable to drop it on Hitler's head as he was sweeping through Europe?
I don't think so. Such an attack would have killed hundreds of thousands of largely innocent people without guaranteeing the death of Hitler himself (or that it would stop the war). The general concept of assassinating senior political/military leaders raises its own questions but I'm not convinced this is a legitimate method anyway.

If a Country has continually indicated they intend to destroy a neighbor and are developing a nuclear weapon in reinforced underground facilities, is it legally and morally justifiable to use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy them?
Regardless of the munitions I'd question the legality, especially without a declaration of war, and if the attack wasn't by the nation under (perceived) threat. There could be circumstances where it would be justified as a last resort. I do still see an irony in threating a country with nuclear weapons to prevent it threatening a country with nuclear weapons. Kind of like the classic "Don't hit your sister <slap>!".

Maybe a distinction should be made between tactical and the larger yield city-levelling weapons. The latter is obviously the greater concern.
 
Does Iran have the right to take the same view of Israel or the USA?

I don't think so. Such an attack would have killed hundreds of thousands of largely innocent people without guaranteeing the death of Hitler himself (or that it would stop the war). The general concept of assassinating senior political/military leaders raises its own questions but I'm not convinced this is a legitimate method anyway.

Regardless of the munitions I'd question the legality, especially without a declaration of war, and if the attack wasn't by the nation under (perceived) threat. There could be circumstances where it would be justified as a last resort. I do still see an irony in threating a country with nuclear weapons to prevent it threatening a country with nuclear weapons. Kind of like the classic "Don't hit your sister <slap>!".

Maybe a distinction should be made between tactical and the larger yield city-levelling weapons. The latter is obviously the greater concern.

Iran has that right but it's not what's happening because it's they who are are the protagonists and none of this would be happening otherwise.

As for not ending WWII in Europe before it got too far, it ended WWII in the Pacific and killed a whole lot of largely innocent people.

I'm not talking about the USA nuking Iran. I'm talking about the nation under threat doing it ... and you'd better believe they're under threat.
 
Iran has that right but it's not what's happening because it's they who are are the protagonists and none of this would be happening otherwise.

As for not ending WWII in Europe before it got too far, it ended WWII in the Pacific and killed a whole lot of largely innocent people.

I'm not talking about the USA nuking Iran. I'm talking about the nation under threat doing it ... and you'd better believe they're under threat.

But it saved many more "innocent" lives. Had the US invaded the Japanese main Islands, the death toll would of been in the 10s of millions. Imagine the fighting on Okinawa, but more intense, for every foot of the main islands. The Japanese genome and culture may not of survived.
 
No, my question was in what viable situation would it be legally and morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. I also expect follow-up discussion on any (serious) answer because my whole point is this areas isn't easy or straight forwards (and because this is a discussion forum, not a Q&A).

It is legally and morally right and justifiable when their use would prevent a even greater loss of life. In any such confrontation, the lives of our side will always be considered more valuable than the lives of the enemy. Yes, there may be "innocents" killed on their side along with the guilty, but there are nothing but innocents on our side.

Current policy, unless it recently changed, is that we will only use weapons of mass destruction when such have been used against us. Maybe to prevent their use.
 
But it saved many more "innocent" lives. Had the US invaded the Japanese main Islands, the death toll would of been in the 10s of millions. Imagine the fighting on Okinawa, but more intense, for every foot of the main islands. The Japanese genome and culture may not of survived.

No argument from me.
 
I'm not sure that "a right to have atomic bombs" exists. If such a right does exist, having the right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom