4 ms·

Who knows? They are just talking big - it's even more ludicrous for the only nation who ever used nuclear weapon on civilian population to still have them, am I

Who knows? They are just talking big - it's even more ludicrous for the only nation who ever used nuclear weapon on civilian population to still have them, am I rite?

ars 11y ago
> am I rite? No you are not. You are being simplistic and trying to make a point with meaningless platitudes. Intellectual "shortcuts" like that will not lead you to any sort of understanding.
- timonovici 11y ago
  If my comment was meaningless platitudes, what can I make of yours? My arguments was that it doesn't matter what one is claiming - in the end what matters is what you do. The americans are the only ones so far to have nuked other people, and they still get to keep their missiles. Don't you think we are way too forgiving with them?
  - ars 11y ago
    > in the end what matters is what you do. And Americans have lots of bombs and don't use them. North Korea on the other hand tortures people routinely for fun (not for intelligence or other excuses, but literally for fun). > The americans are the only ones so far to have nuked other people They did that on the dawn of the Nuclear era when no one understood the impact or nuclear weapons. After the first two they understood things better - any not only never used them again, but worked to make sure no one else would either. > Don't you think we are way too forgiving with them? Not in the slightest.
s_q_b 11y ago
Do you truly believe that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, or Imperial Japan would have hesitated for a second to use nuclear weapons if they had developed them first? I, for one, do not. --- Sidenote: The most remarkable aspect of the story of the atomic bomb occurred after the development of fusion weapons. The President and his chief advisors called together a committee to determine whether to wipe out the Soviet Union. The discussion took place in the Roosevelt Room shortly following the development of the hydrogen bomb. With its massive bomber fleet, unparalleled fusion technology, and large stockpile of fission weapons, the United States could have quite literally conquered the world. Yet it chose not to do so. I know of no parallel in world history where such an event has occurred. Prior to the conference, Hans Bethe of the Manhattan project wrote to the President: "If we fight a war and win it with nuclear weapons, what history will remember is not the ideas we were fighting for, but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan, who brutally killed every last inhabitant of Persia."
- timonovici 11y ago
  The russians, which are not that different from URSS, if you ask me, have nuclear missiles. They haven't used them in Syria, or any other conflict that I'm aware of. They are stupid enough to have detonated the worlds largest nuclear weapon, I'll give them that (Tsar bomb). But not on other humans. On a deserted island. We like to vilify the russians, sure we do - but when you look at the facts as they are, a very different picture comes to your eyes. Don't let those manipulative news stories fool you.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    Read the history of Stalin's reaction to being told of the bomb at Yalta. He encouraged its immediate use against the Japanese Empire.
- timonovici 11y ago
  "If we fight a war and win it with nuclear weapons, what history will remember is not the ideas we were fighting for, but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan, who brutally killed every last inhabitant of Persia." I like this quote. What I like even more, is how just above it, you smudge the history as if they not detonated nuclear weapon on people, but they just refrained from conquering the world. Read what I said the same thread - in the end, what matter is what you actually do, not what you could have done, or what you claimed you would do.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    I refer you back to my previous comment about the other regimes, and their propensity to use atomic weapons, had they developed them first. Hell, Stalin told Truman to use it on Imperial Japan as soon as possible.
    - timonovici 11y ago
      I've read the comment. Unfortunately, I lack the motivation right now to read history books, but leaving that aside, a good start would be the USA themselves to lead the way, and get rid of those weapons. Like South Africa did. We cannot plead ignorance anymore, we know they are horrible weapons by now (though, the military might call that "effective"). I know there is a plan, by which they reduce the ammount of nuclear warheads, but to me it seems like they are dragging their feets, looking suspicious on one another. Have they wished it, they would be long gone, serving as fuel in some reactor. Getting back to North Korea - I don't think something can be done without causing a major conflict. Leaving them be is not safe either, but there must be a peaceful way. If the problem is that Kim Jong-un is paranoid and crazy - he'll die eventually, and if not provoked, I hope things go smooth. A lot of the world revolves around trust - even if blind, stupid trust. A crazy enough guy could poison the bread in the supermaket, and there's not much one can do about it. I think this is somewhat similar.

Who knows? They are just talking big - it's even more ludicrous for the only nation who ever used nuclear weapon on civilian population to still have them, am I rite?

ars 11y ago

> am I rite? No you are not. You are being simplistic and trying to make a point with meaningless platitudes. Intellectual "shortcuts" like that will not lead you to any sort of understanding.

timonovici 11y ago
If my comment was meaningless platitudes, what can I make of yours? My arguments was that it doesn't matter what one is claiming - in the end what matters is what you do. The americans are the only ones so far to have nuked other people, and they still get to keep their missiles. Don't you think we are way too forgiving with them?
- ars 11y ago
  > in the end what matters is what you do. And Americans have lots of bombs and don't use them. North Korea on the other hand tortures people routinely for fun (not for intelligence or other excuses, but literally for fun). > The americans are the only ones so far to have nuked other people They did that on the dawn of the Nuclear era when no one understood the impact or nuclear weapons. After the first two they understood things better - any not only never used them again, but worked to make sure no one else would either. > Don't you think we are way too forgiving with them? Not in the slightest.

s_q_b 11y ago

Do you truly believe that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, or Imperial Japan would have hesitated for a second to use nuclear weapons if they had developed them first? I, for one, do not. --- Sidenote: The most remarkable aspect of the story of the atomic bomb occurred after the development of fusion weapons. The President and his chief advisors called together a committee to determine whether to wipe out the Soviet Union. The discussion took place in the Roosevelt Room shortly following the development of the hydrogen bomb. With its massive bomber fleet, unparalleled fusion technology, and large stockpile of fission weapons, the United States could have quite literally conquered the world. Yet it chose not to do so. I know of no parallel in world history where such an event has occurred. Prior to the conference, Hans Bethe of the Manhattan project wrote to the President: "If we fight a war and win it with nuclear weapons, what history will remember is not the ideas we were fighting for, but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan, who brutally killed every last inhabitant of Persia."

timonovici 11y ago
The russians, which are not that different from URSS, if you ask me, have nuclear missiles. They haven't used them in Syria, or any other conflict that I'm aware of. They are stupid enough to have detonated the worlds largest nuclear weapon, I'll give them that (Tsar bomb). But not on other humans. On a deserted island. We like to vilify the russians, sure we do - but when you look at the facts as they are, a very different picture comes to your eyes. Don't let those manipulative news stories fool you.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  Read the history of Stalin's reaction to being told of the bomb at Yalta. He encouraged its immediate use against the Japanese Empire.
timonovici 11y ago
"If we fight a war and win it with nuclear weapons, what history will remember is not the ideas we were fighting for, but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan, who brutally killed every last inhabitant of Persia." I like this quote. What I like even more, is how just above it, you smudge the history as if they not detonated nuclear weapon on people, but they just refrained from conquering the world. Read what I said the same thread - in the end, what matter is what you actually do, not what you could have done, or what you claimed you would do.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  I refer you back to my previous comment about the other regimes, and their propensity to use atomic weapons, had they developed them first. Hell, Stalin told Truman to use it on Imperial Japan as soon as possible.
  - timonovici 11y ago
    I've read the comment. Unfortunately, I lack the motivation right now to read history books, but leaving that aside, a good start would be the USA themselves to lead the way, and get rid of those weapons. Like South Africa did. We cannot plead ignorance anymore, we know they are horrible weapons by now (though, the military might call that "effective"). I know there is a plan, by which they reduce the ammount of nuclear warheads, but to me it seems like they are dragging their feets, looking suspicious on one another. Have they wished it, they would be long gone, serving as fuel in some reactor. Getting back to North Korea - I don't think something can be done without causing a major conflict. Leaving them be is not safe either, but there must be a peaceful way. If the problem is that Kim Jong-un is paranoid and crazy - he'll die eventually, and if not provoked, I hope things go smooth. A lot of the world revolves around trust - even if blind, stupid trust. A crazy enough guy could poison the bread in the supermaket, and there's not much one can do about it. I think this is somewhat similar.