Nuclear Weapons? A weapon of peace or a destruction?

[Scottish and English Kingdom]

Discuss.

[Great Britain & Scotland]

I'll bite
Nuclear weapons are he most hazardous and dangerous weapons that the world knows today. Its invention does not need to be discussed, but is it really as effective as it is expected to be? Well obviously, in terms of death, destruction and mass chaos, nuclear weapons are "the best". The world is currently in false peace. And, admittedly, it is because of the nuclear weaponry. Nobody dares start a large scale war, because they have to then shoulder the disastrous after effects of the war, if humanity survives to blame them, that is. These weapons are a bane to humanity that are making fear, not peace. Yes, had the United Nations, and its constant support been unavailable, I wouldn't be writing this right now.
Its all a power game right now, and if someone is to blame, it is the advent of this potentially disastrous weapon, whose damage is unrectifiable

[Klenthium]

No.
The very doctrine of MAD has prevented wars between major powers for 60 years now, almost certainly preventing World War III and beyond. The years after the nuclear bomb was invented have been, percentage-wise, some of the least violent and most peaceful years in all of human history. It just doesn't seem like it due to increased news coverage.

Without nuclear bombs, Pakistan and India would have gone to full-scale war and tens to hundreds of millions would have died.
Without nuclear bombs, China and Russia (Or China and India, take your pic) would have escalated their border conflicts and tens to hundreds of millions would have died.
Without nuclear bombs, Russia would have likely gone to war with NATO, and tens to hundreds of millions would have died.
Without nuclear bombs, the USA would have had to either invade Japan and suffer a million casualties alone, in addition to tens of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians, as well as destroying the Japanese people and culture, or starved them out and done the same.

Nuclear bombs have saved far more lives than they have ever taken. They're dangerous weapons, to be sure-- but they're also so dangerous that they demand the use of sanity when possessing them, for the consequences are far greater. Even chemical and biological weapons hold less of a stigma of danger and destruction-- despite their relatively widespread use. The very stigma of horrendous power-- of world-destroying danger-- is what keeps nuclear weapons from being used and prevents any war that could escalate to the use of nuclear force.

[pazakistan]

Yes. One nuclear bomb could not only kill millions of civilians but also cause destruction to ecosystems. The radiation could spread and affect countries that were not meant to be affected by the explosion. Any what about all those countries that might use this power to take over the world. As Einstein said I don't know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. Imagine what would happen with today's nukes. And nukes are not even the most powerful explosive. That honour goes to hydrogen bombs. Look up hydrogen bombs and you will be shocked (they are like nukes but much more powerful)Thermonuclear weapons ( a type of nuke) create a rapidly expanding fireball that crushes everything. And when that fireball contracts it creates a vacuum that can rip a a victims lungs right out.

[Candlewhisper]

I voted that they are immoral, but that position requires clarification.

First and most obviously, the morality of a non-sentient item or technology is determined by context, the nature of those who possess it, and their intent. For example, a picture of a young man is not immoral. A picture of a young man taken illicitly and without permission in the possession of a stalker for the purposes of sexual gratification is highly immoral. Context matters.

All weapons, naturally, possess some degree of immorality. While whether violence is ever justifiable is a separate and complex argument, all weapons are by their nature devices intended to cause harm to other human beings, so always have some weight of immorality. There is a question of degree in the immorality of weapons.

One commonly agreed marker of immorality is in how indiscriminate a weapon is, and its potential for collateral damage. A handgun is a tool for killing people, so is quite immoral, but tends to be used at ranges and in situations where risks of collateral damage are minimal. A landmine, on the other hand, does not distinguish between combatant and non combatant, and between justified violence and unjustified violence. This makes it a more immoral weapon that a handgun. Nuclear weapons, of course, are very indiscriminate, because of radiation and environmental impact. Also, of course, as a weapon with significant payload its very hard to target just military targets with a nuclear weapon - often to kill soldiers, you also need to kill civilians, children and so on.

Another marker of immortality is the degree of suffering and pain it causes. Suffering and pain being seen as military objectives is an inherently more immoral stance than the removal of the ability of an enemy to fight. This is why ordinary bullets are seen as ok, but crossed bullets are generally not considered acceptable weapons of war. The latter is slightly more likely to incapacitate, but does so through increased injury and pain. Its part of why the chemical weapons convention exists, as these weapons cause a disproportionate amount of suffering relative to their strategic benefits. Nuclear weapons at site of impact don't cause suffering, but ongoing radiation and fall out can cause immeasurable and disproportionate suffering.

So, in terms of weapon vs weapon, nuclear weapons are amongst the most immoral ones.

Then there's the broader picture: MAD. A weapon that has the potential to lead to further weapon use with an endpoint of extinction of all human life on earth has to be considered ultimately indiscriminate.

More difficult is the question of whether its immoral to possess nuclear weapons for the purpose of their threat rather than their use. This is a more morally complex question!

[WolfVale]

We should consider biological weapons in the discussion, they are just as deadly and just as immoral.

[SouthernSevenEmpire]

We all know how dangerous nuclear weapons can be, in fact Britain could have been completely wiped out if dirty bombs landed in the Atlantic and the wind was blowing in the right direction during the cold war. For now nuclear weapons are owned by the more politically stable countries. If less politically stable countries did get their hands on these weapons, then it would cause great destruction.

In the past, these weapons have caused millions of lives to be lost and we should question the morality of killing using these weapons.

In the ideal world, there would be no need for these weapons, but we live in the real world and while we believe the majority of the world we know to be stable, there are more and more disagreements and more and more arguments arising. We in the developed world know what damage and devastation that these weapons can cause and the last thing anyone wants to have to do is use them, but not everyone thinks the same. That is unfortunately why we need these weapons. It is to sustain global peace.

[Alkasia]

Oct 16, 2015 15:29:53 GMT -5 SouthernSevenEmpire said:

We all know how dangerous nuclear weapons can be, in fact Britain could have been completely wiped out if dirty bombs landed in the Atlantic and the wind was blowing in the right direction during the cold war. For now nuclear weapons are owned by the more politically stable countries. If less politically stable countries did get their hands on these weapons, then it would cause great destruction.

In the past, these weapons have caused millions of lives to be lost and we should question the morality of killing using these weapons.

In the ideal world, there would be no need for these weapons, but we live in the real world and while we believe the majority of the world we know to be stable, there are more and more disagreements and more and more arguments arising. We in the developed world know what damage and devastation that these weapons can cause and the last thing anyone wants to have to do is use them, but not everyone thinks the same. That is unfortunately why we need these weapons. It is to sustain global peace.

But global peace is directly threatened by the existence and possession of these weapons. MAD is effective to a point, but it isn't foolproof. And once one nation decides to send a volley of nuclear missiles, the entire system of MAD is destabilized and effectively worthless. Or if you look at it in a different way, MAD fulfills its purpose of mutual destruction, which is the last thing anyone should want. 

Without the existence of these weapons, countries and government could find much more diplomatic methods of deterrence or even peace. We can't rely on weapons of mass-destruction to keep the peace. Right now, North Korea is continuing to test missiles and continuing to bring their technology closer to true long-range effective missiles. We can't know for certain if they would really take such a stupid leap and launch a nuclear war- but it is still a possibility.

Trying to keep the peace with weapons of mass-destruction is like trying to keep someone alive with a lethal injection.

The pseudo-peace is kept through fear alone. Fear of destruction is a very flimsy way of diplomacy and peacekeeping, and as such, is bound to collapse with much of humanity as the casualties.

This system cannot and will not last, and it all could have been avoided without the existence of these weapons.

[pazakistan]

All I'm gonna say is once the nukes start launching we Canadians are dead.

[Alkasia]

Oct 9, 2016 11:16:32 GMT -5 pazakistan said:

All I'm gonna say is once the nukes start launching we Canadians are dead.

Perhaps. You guys certainly won't be the first ones hit though. I imagine Southeastern Canada might get some residual fallout from nuke drops on the US (considering New York is right there).

[Hawalius]

Possession of the weapons isn't immoral. Using them is.

It's a bit of a conundrum because as others have pointed out, it's the threat that one might use them that keeps the peace. (More or less.)