3 ms·
It is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. If a country decides to be peaceful and not have an active army, airforce, and navy; but retains a stockpile o
by 3pt14159 13y ago
It is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. If a country decides to be peaceful and not have an active army, airforce, and navy; but retains a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is it morally unjustifiable to strike an invading fleet with atomic bombs?
The whole point behind MAD is to show that you refuse to play the game of "I have the bigger army" and to literally level the playing field by making the game lose-lose.
- brazzy 13y agoSo that's why the Soviet Union and the USA didn't have to invest much in conventional weapons during the cold war! Oh, wait...
- tehwalrus 13y agoUsing nukes to bomb entire civilian cities when the other side can't respond (US, 1945) is completely wrong. Using nukes against a conventional army is dubious - it is disproportionate in the extreme. The threat of using them may not be wrong (but I'm still not convinced on that point.) Then (as sister comment says) neither side was playing the game right in the cold war. I object to the way the game is set up in international relations - If we actually had a system to enforce international law it would be much much harder to justify having unilateral armies at all! My views on this are somewhat unconventional, though, so don't worry if I sound crazy; I may well be.