It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Nuclear War Required? {Theoretical Discussion}

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:03 PM
Well all right. Most of you who know me and have read my posts know that I am very adamant on this anti-war sentiment I have.

However, in light of the rising tensions and talks of war I think it's important that we ask ourselves a very important question.

Should there be at least one incident of Nuclear Weapon usage for everybody else to get the message?

Does an example need to be made, so that the world in conjunction will know to never use or threaten the use of such horrible weapons ever again?

I mean granted we had the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings during WW2, but those weren't nearly the caliber of weapons we have today. And I think people have lost touch with the reality of what could happen and what would happen in the event of a Nuclear attack.

Now I am not proposing we got out and bomb the next country who defies the world, that makes no sense.

This is a theoretical thread, to promote conversation about our current Society's mentality on violence and the use of Nuclear arms. It seems people have forgotten the horrible reality of past events and are just foaming at the mouth to get a repeat?

So I ask, is it required, in order for us to know the way forward. So that once and for all, people are aware, educated and scarred to death of this kind of power under a world leader's finger?

I'm starting to think the answer is yes, but I will not give a concrete answer until I've had the pleasure of intelligent replies from ATS.

Please weight in your thoughts.


[edit on 6/14/2009 by tothetenthpower]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Dude, you've already shared how your mind feels. You feel we should go and nuke North Korea, that's exactly your sentiment. I say you should get a conscious, and no, we don't need another atrocity, especially not at the hands of a country that intends to call itself a super power and want to be followed. America already demonstrated the atrocious results of nuclear weapons, it is not required to witness another example of this, and today's nuclear weapons would probably affect a whole region as opposed to just a country. Your sentiment is idealistic and philosophical, but thousands of innocent people will die, that sounds like a trade off not worth fruition.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by TravisYah]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by TravisYah

My response was placed in another thread, it has nothing to do with this one.

And I think the world does need to be reminded of what happens when thousands or millions of people die.

We've lost touch with our humanity and it seems the only thing that brings us together today is tragedy.


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:16 PM
To the tenth, my opinion is the nuclear war is 'not' required, but the existance of
nuclear weapons prevent war, its just to keep a stale mate, i won't shoot if you don't shoot. Lets just hope its kept that way hey?

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:21 PM
"Should there be" at least one incident involving a nuclear detonation?

No, there should not be Even one such incident.

Will there be at least one such incident?

Yes, most likely.

Those who forget the past are doomed to re-live it, or so the saying goes.

Our modern society, and all the institutions that comprise and sustain it, world-wide, are dedicated to, and dependent upon, mankind's lack of long-term memory.

I pray that the "incident", should it come to pass, spares the loss of human life (a high-altitude burst over the Pacific Ocean, perhaps?).

But I have already begun to grieve for those poor souls, of any nation, who end up being sacrificed to our need to periodically "re-learn" what should be obvious to any and all rational, sentient, beings.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Bhadhidar]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:22 PM
You want to kill a bunch of people so we know what happens when a bunch of people are killed?

Well, I guess you could find a group of people who agree with you, find a distant island to do it on, and all blow yourselves up.

What do you feel would be achieved by your heroic death?

By the way, do you believe bringing about Armageddon would hasten the rapture?

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by Kailassa

Did I not say theoretical conversation? And no I don't believe that it should happen, but I am asking the question.

With the world's mentality, we are boud to repeat our mistakes, would it not be better for one isolated incident to occur, as opposed to multiple occasions that destory the whole world?

And I don't believe in the Rapture, or Armageddon, so no.


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:43 PM
I personally think in the world today as it stands nuclear weapons are probably needed, as said previously the stale mate situation seems to be working fine with the larger nuclear nations. The gun was a great idea as a replacement to the bow and arrow, great for hunting and great for defending yourself, sadly though the stale mate situation does not apply often to two men with guns. Will the stale mate last long with nukes, sadly i very much doubt it.

Slightly off topic here's a very interesting video concerning the possible use of a nuke in the first gulf war.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:37 PM
Whether or not we need a reminder, a reminder is coming sooner than we all want. I'm going to say this with all the guts I can muster right now. What the hell the sands are almost run out and the lever is falling on this "Rube Goldberg" trigger!

North Korea hasn't tested a weapon yet. They've only tested the TRIGGERS for a much stronger weapon. The first test was to find the necessary potency, mix purity and proper reflector/cone alignment in order to further detonate a hydrogen payload. We are talking megaton + weapons. Not just 1/250th of a megaton actual device like most believe. They tested TRIGGERS for thermonuclear hydrogen based implements.

Their next test just might be an atmospheric test that happens close to the north east pacific with an accidental EMP attack on the western USA, Japan and, technically themselves. Though they should fare just fine as they are buried and more than likely faraday caged as well.

The debate on "can they deliver a nuke of even low yield?" is long over inside a certain 5 sided building and think tanks that are in the know. Will they? Roll a dice... 4 or above yes, 4 or below probably. Just as well.

As for will it wake us up? If it hit us it will wake us up fast, give the powers that be just what they want and receive the VERY SHORT LIVED applause
of the scrutineers in europe, asia and the middle east. The world will instantly be on a true war footing. New industries will be born and new countries will join the nuclear club and more chances of even more reminders.

The only way to win a nuke war is shoot first and only if they cannot see you coming. Once those launches happen, it's 15 minutes to the stone age or death and if you survive, you'll be told your fortune of having the worst sort of cancers now a certain future for you.

NO! We don't need a reminder. There's reminders EVERYWHERE from the 50s and 60s. Modern cancer is rampant and a direct result of past atmospheric testing. I wonder how many friends and families you know that play in the dirt/gardening etc that have intestinal cancers, lung cancers that don't even smoke or eat anything unhealthy? Anyone with any knowledge on the inside will nod to this fact as it is what it is.

It's coming whether we like it or not, the missiles are being built, rogue material trading continues in it's 4th decade, tensions rise and the world waits in their hearts for "SOMETHING" to happen.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Atlantican]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:49 PM
Is there an Arborist in the house the "tree of peace" has formed a malignant outgrowth !

To the tenth , theoretical or not, please consider the implications of what you are suggesting .

posted by tothetenthpower

So I ask, is it required, in order for us to know the way forward.



quote]Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Does an example need to be made, so that the world in conjunction will know to never use or threaten the use of such horrible weapons ever again?

Well we`ve had " The War To End All Wars " .... and we all know how that worked out .

It doesn`t need to get get worse before it gets better ....... it just needs to get better .

We've lost touch with our humanity and it seems the only thing that brings us together today is tragedy.

Perhaps a huge natural disaster , would draw a spontaneous heart felt response from the world citizenry, but an indiscriminate nuclear strike would serve only as a catalyst for retribution . IMHO.

There are things other than tragedy, that bring us together , these are the things we should accentuate .

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

At the Trinity Test New Mexico.
J.Robert Oppenheimer. ( paraphrasing the Bhagavad Gita)

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by UmbraSumus

Haha, thank you for your reply friend.

No there is no growth in this tree, and I do understand the implications of what I am saying and will take all the blame for suggesting it, that's not a problem.

And I do see where you are coming from. I dont' mean indiscriminate Nuclear strike however, I meant to keep places that are potential targets of this, but we all know who I am talking about here.

North Korea is poised to either attack or be attacked.

In any case, whether this happens or not. A great tragedy I feel is the only thing that will bring about piece.

It reminds me of the end of The Watchers movie.


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:04 PM
Nuclear weapons should NEVER be used space against bug aliens or something.

but NEVER on Earth or on Humans. Ever!

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:08 PM
If the only way forward is to get nuked

I do not want to progress, Id rather go back to Medieval Era

id rather die by swords and axes than by radiation

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:40 PM
Think about it. One good round of nuclear warfare and the world would be transformed into a peaceful, idyllic place, rid forever of the evil and dangerous creations of our various governments, e.g. nuclear weapons. War could not take place if no political entities survived to wage it.

Sure, not everyone would survive, but the process would be more or less egalitarian; the rich turn to ash and hydrogen nuclei just as readily as the poor. And granted, those who live will have to deal with unfavorable agricultural conditions and etc. for a few decades, but afterward, those who do survive will be given a second chance to build a society that won't destroy itself.

Our present world order just isn't capable of achieving that goal, but I like to think that we've learned enough in the process of creating it that our second go might work out a little better; it could only help if this process were informed by the recent experience of a global catastrophe for which mankind was wholly responsible.

So, basically, yes, nuclear war could be a good thing. The world is too sick to survive as is, and I feel that global devastation would be just cathartic enough for the human condition that it could set things back on course. more or less.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:00 PM
If we need a reminder now, then won't we need one again in say 65 years or so?
The only way to be rid of nukes is to shoot them all off at once. then the world will be safe until humanity once again evolves from the surviving cockroaches.

Nuclear non-proliferation means keeping them out of the hands of those to whom MAD means nothing. like Kim Jong mentally Il or I'minthemoodforjihad.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:31 PM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by TravisYah

My response was placed in another thread, it has nothing to do with this one.

And I think the world does need to be reminded of what happens when thousands or millions of people die.

We've lost touch with our humanity and it seems the only thing that brings us together today is tragedy.


hw bout we do a completely theatrical "wag the dog" version of some artificial city in the middle of nowhere.

we don't have to cause suffering

and it gets the same effect.


also, are you currently taking any anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals?


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

I must say that i find this train of thought not in keeping with my previous interactions with you .

Do you remember what particular point/event that crystallised your thoughts towards themes of 'humanity rediscovered through (someone else's) suffering' ? ...... i`m just kidding !

I do get the spirit of you question . I just don`t think Nuclear Shock therapy is what humanity needs .

I think adding more suffering on the wretched souls of North Korea will not improve the situation . As for the U.N sanctions, you have the ruling elites difficulty getting good cognac juxtaposed against a population griped by food shortages.
A nuclear strike would be no different i would imagine, with the ruling Elites helping themselves to adequate shelter, food and medical care . Damning their fellows to the fallout and blind despair .

The Era may change , the country, the cause of the conflict my differ ....... but its always the average citizens that bear the heaviest burden .

Is it necessary to collectively punish 23+ million people, for the actions of their leader(s) ?

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:01 AM
From the point of view of the globalists, a nuclear war is indeed required. It’s just what they need to browbeat the masses into giving up whatever is left of their freedoms and sovereignty, and it’s just what we’ll get fairly soon now.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:05 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:06 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

My answer? Thank you for asking btw.
If we didnt learn from nagasaki and hiroshima we never will.
Untill people are burned to a crisp they will kill each other off
one way or another without some type of outside intervention.
IMHO of course....could happen.

Oh the answer...don't be ridiculous!
Or,... I hope not!

[edit on 15-6-2009 by dodadoom]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in