Amazon.com Widgets
  • It saved more lives than it took

    The use of nuclear weapons on Japan in august of 1945 ended world war two, if it had gone on any longer the lives the war would have taken would have further out paced the lives the bombs did. The war took millions of lives as it is, many of those were innocent and by no means deserved to die, and the same goes for the thousands of civilian lives the bombs took, however, once the world saw the power of those bomb the war came to a speedy end. Nuclear weaponry is a last resort, "We're out of options" thing, the willy-nilly use of them is what proposes an issue for humanity not the general, end-all use.

  • It saved more lives than it took

    The use of nuclear weapons on Japan in august of 1945 ended world war two, if it had gone on any longer the lives the war would have taken would have further out paced the lives the bombs did. The war took millions of lives as it is, many of those were innocent and by no means deserved to die, and the same goes for the thousands of civilian lives the bombs took, however, once the world saw the power of those bomb the war came to a speedy end. Nuclear weaponry is a last resort, "We're out of options" thing, the willy-nilly use of them is what proposes an issue for humanity not the general, end-all use.

  • One crime doesn't justify another.

    By killing innocent civilians, a government put itself in the position of trial for war crimes. But worst of all, if the usage of nuclear bombs by a nation in the past is not met with severe punishment, this will justify the usage of the nuclear bomb in the future.

  • Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist.

    They are dangerous, unstable, high unnatural, and their entire purpose is to kill people. How could anything like that be legal? Even simply possessing one yet never using it should be a crime against humanity. The potential for destruction is too great. It is awful that we live in a society where the manufacturing of nuclear weapons is commonplace.

  • When they are used.

    Nuclear weapons alone are not a crime against humanity. They are only when they are actually used. If they don't kill, the radiation left behind causes more problems. It leads to cancer, mutations and other things that are harmful to not only humans, but to any wildlife within the radius.

  • Yes, if they are used.

    Nuclear weapons destroy everything in its path. When they are used, both combatants and non combatants are killed. Today's military operations now focus on precision attacks using well trained personnel and equipment. Nuclear weapons are also pose a long term environmental hazard due to radiation and its long half life.

  • They are terrible

    Weapons of mass destruction are absolutely terrible for mankind. Obviously being in the United States I am glad we have them. But if I was in a different country and being told I could not have them I would resent the United States. They do mass damage and effect us long after the bombing.

  • It saved more lives than it took

    The use of nuclear weapons on Japan in august of 1945 ended world war two, if it had gone on any longer the lives the war would have taken would have further out paced the lives the bombs did. The war took millions of lives as it is, many of those were innocent and by no means deserved to die, and the same goes for the thousands of civilian lives the bombs took, however, once the world saw the power of those bomb the war came to a speedy end. Nuclear weaponry is a last resort, "We're out of options" thing, the willy-nilly use of them is what proposes an issue for humanity not the general, end-all use.

  • Not until they're utilized

    Right now all nuclear weapons do is put the "my wee wee is bigger than yours" quarrels between major countries to rest. Nobody is going to invade anybody else because mutually assured destruction is a thing, and it is a thing that keeps stupid people from making stupid decisions. Nukes make for a more hostile world but one that's also scared to go into full scale war.

  • Nuclear Weapons Are Okay If Used Responsibly

    As a country we do not have the right to tell other countries what kind of weapons they can develop. However, we should be able to expect them to use them responsibly. The truth of the matter is that many countries have nuclear weapons of some sort that they have developed. Most countries just aren't as open about them as North Korea is.

  • No. Nuclear weapons are simply tools.

    Nuclear weapons, in and of themselves, are nothing more than tools - inanimate objects without the innate capacity for being either good or evil. An analogous position would be a star. In and of itself, the star possesses neither good nor evil intentions and can be beneficial or harmful. It is said that even our sun will expand and consume the earth in several billion more years. If at that time human society still exists - there could be no naming the sun a "crime against humanity" even though it were wiping out all of civilization. This being said, if someone were able to control the sun, and then cause the sun to expand deliberately (with the intention of wiping out humanity) - it could be said that this action were a crime against humanity.

    This being said, nuclear bombs can be utilized in ways very detrimental to the well being of individuals, societies, and civilization itself. The technology which allowed us to create nuclear bombs has also allowed us to create nuclear power plants and has reduced our carbon footprint on the planet as a result. Would anyone argue that medical science is a crime against humanity? What about those scientists who work day and night to prevent and stop diseases? The same technology which allows us to create cures and preventions for diseases also allows us to create biological weapons.

    A young scientist was working diligently to create a cure for cancer. After many years of work he had indeed found a cure and was given the Nobel prize for his efforts. His creation helped save the lives of millions of individuals. Decades after cancer was eradicated, a new and super deadly disease was seen in the wilds, and no cure was able to be found. Billions died, and the population of the planet was reduce back to stone age levels. The cause was found to be a bi-product of the cancer cure production - one day, a break down in the production facility lead to the release of highly contagious and highly deadly viruses.

    Without the cure for cancer, millions would have been lead to an early death. Because of a breakdown in the system, billions eventually died. Would you say that the cure was inherently evil and a crime against humanity? What if all precautions had been taken and no virus was released and humanity never was threatened by this bi-product.

    Although the damage and dangers of nuclear weapons seems apocalyptic to many, the truth of the matter is that nuclear bombs have killed less people than bullets, explosions, or even toenail cancer. That is not to say that the potential to kill is there, the benefits from the auxiliary technologies behind the nuclear bombs has saved and improved lives on a much bigger scale than it has destroyed lives.

  • They are just the next technological advance

    Nuclear weapons are not a crime against humanity because humanity is who invented them. They are simply the next advancement in weaponry. There will be a time when there are larger and more powerful weapons than nuclear weapons. They are simply the next building block to technological advances in weapons.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.