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.


Fact: Nuclear Weapons Stop Wars. Why? People are scared to use them...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by spyder550

the last nuclear bomb that was 97% radioactive fallout free was the Czar Bomb.
think about it
97% fallout free,,in 1960,,
50 years ago,,
so its not radioactive fallout that is in these new and improved versions,,,that will kill u,,
game changer,,,was the Czar Bomb.
So then Teller made the Hydrogen Bomb.
then someone made the Nuetron Bomb.
then the EMP bomb,

ya lots of toys.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by travis911

I am a pacifist. I believe there is a way to live in peace but that we haven't found it.
There has not been a weapon built that has not been used. It is only a matter of time before we use them all.

I hear and understand others casualties of war, collateral damage is another reason I am against it. War I mean.
Since you brought it up...It was about 6 months ago I was fed up with American casualties. Sick of seeing the fresh and hopeful faces in the news and spread across the newspaper. And this one was the one that sent me around the bend. A local kid, he left a wife, two children and a dog. Maybe it was the dog but I'd had enough death notices to make me physically ill. Just a couple days earlier we'd lost another guy, local, young. He looked smart, and happy. He had a beautiful family and it wasn't just his loss but I could see the family torn apart. Children too small to be proud now with a mother who will do nothing but cry. And why?
For 2 buildings falling and 2 thousand deaths we are sacrificing 6000 people and 10 years of families torn apart.
Why send this young man with everything to live for? Our best and brightest. And the war seems to have gone on and on without end.

In that moment and I am a little ashamed to think of it now, I imagined the bomb would have been better

I wished we had dropped a nuclear bomb. I had always heard the argument that it had shortened WW2. It had saved lives.

Yes, there would have been an awful price, but the war would have ended then and those lost would have been primarily the guilty and their families, I thought. (wrongly)

And this was key, the lives lost would not have been American.
We had already lost too many and so that's the argument for losing more? I don't get war.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by Cassius666

Russians have abandoned the no first strike policy. USA never had first strike policy.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:45 AM
we just need a few nukes to stop asteroids

we will use them its just when, we never made nothing and not used it, never

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by nighthawk1954

Originally posted by Cassius666
They only stop nuclear war. Also I believe Russia and America have a policy to not strike first with a nuclear weapon. What do you do if Iran invades Saudi Arabia and threatens nuclear retaliation if there is a counter strike?
edit on 6-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

That would be very interesting. I do not believe the U.S. would use nuclear weapons unless they were used first by Iran. If the U.S. contemplated using nuclear weapons I am sure they would consult with our allies.
edit on 6-7-2012 by nighthawk1954 because: (no reason given)

the usa already nuked Japan man, no nukes where used against usa
you are making assumptions that are incorrect
its only when will they use them and against who

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by boeserwolf
The truth is the USA has been waging covert nuclear war in the form of depleted uranium weapons for more than a decade. DU weaponry aerosolizes upon impact, spreading radioactive particles far and wide contaminating the air, water and soil. Birth deformities and miscarriages in Iraq have skyrocketed since the US invasion.

correct and troops return home and get sick, like the guys cleaning humvee's do

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
The scariest aspect of nuclear war "used" to be Mutually Assured Destruction - M.A.D.

This is very soon a thing of yesteryear as the West ramps up its missile shield, places Sattellites with lasers in position so that M.A.D is neagted.

It will become Assured Destruction. So the west can launch a first strike against Russia and China, protect against a retaliation and launch a second strike to wipe out remaining targets.

Missile shield is due to come on line within the next few years, 2016 I beleive, so the smaller dominos (Syria and Iran) must be taken care off before they target the big ones.

oh dude wake up to yourself
so you can protect yourself from Russia but not Iran?
its HAARP that is the biggest concern, so even if your shield hopes did work against who knows how many thousand rockets the HAARP weapons destroys targets even if underground

This is very soon a thing of yesteryear

oh man it will NEVER be a thing of yesteryear, humans can destroy the planet including the usa

even just a few EMP's can bring down the whole electronic apparatus the usa relies on but this fact is ignored in planning as nothing can be done to stop it

consular vehicles have had plenty of time/opportunity to bring in nukes not to mention suitcase nukes

if ww3 happens not many will survive in usa it is assured and like if you nuke china/russia/ how would you stop the radiation in the stream of air that flows directly from those locations to usa, like the fukushima
radiation is

if you ask me you fear all the time so lash out, its no other reason for your logic that i can see

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:41 PM
Its been mentioned already but bears repeating for emphasis.

The only possible good argument for nuclear weapons is that MAD prevents direct conventional conflict between rational nuclear states. History has proven this correct.

Unfortunately the greater the proliferation of the weapons the greater the chance they fall to a non state group, or an unstable and irrational state.

The way things are going I believe we have not seen the last use of a nuclear weapon against a major population centre. MAD will fail as there is no deterring people brainwashed into believing this life is less important than a future hypothetical one.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:59 PM
they only prevent temporary wars between two states who hold the nuclear capability.

anything asymetrical still continues on like it always has. Syria has no nuclear deterrent therefore they were a target.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in