Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1468661)

What are you really worried about when it comes to nuclear weapons? The cold war left no dead from nuclear blast. But the deterence it represents has allowed us to live some what fruitful and productive lives. Until recently.

The idea that the cold war was bad is bad in the purly empirical standard of logic. No Nuke bombs, no exentential wars.

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1468662)

I disagree. If those same accidents had happened in a world without nuclear weapons, nobody would be clamoring to launch a retaliatory strike. Cooler heads would have prevailed.


If the offended party is so determined, than yes, nukes be damned. If JFK or Khrushchev had been assassinated by a KGB or CIA agent, respectively, than the possibility of an ensuing nuclear war is very likely. As a counter counter point, Lincoln was assassinated after the end of the Civil War. No war.

Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1468665)

Nukes are good, in the right hands. Not in the hands of those who openly advocate the destruction of other nations.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1468670)

Which is exactly why wars will continue to be fought over them. Nukes are here; you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but that does not make them 'good'.

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1468677)

A nuke is neither good nor evil, it is a metal object with radioactive materials inside. Whoever uses the nuke, that's where the good or evil lies.

As the saying goes: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1468678)

The problem is that if it weren't nukes some other excuse would be used.

It is the nukes which keeps the other excuses from blossoming into world war. Look at it from that angle and your moment of clairity embrace you.

Originally Posted by takeda shingen (Post 1468683)

unfortunately, that view doesn't really reconcile with history, does it? The fact is that is was nukes, it is nukes, and it will continue to be nukes. Meditate on that, grasshopper.

Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1468685)

Tell that to the soldiers crossing the beaches of Normandy.

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1468684)

Perhaps you are right concerning Lincoln, but regarding JFK and Krushchev...


Wow. Just wow. Have we served together? Do you know anything about my service? What knowledge do I lack to make the "correct" decisions? Are you implying that I wouldn't use nuclear weapons if it came down to it? Because I can assure you that I had no qualms when it came to my job and would do my part in executing those orders if they were given. And as for my high rank of ETR3, I was ahead of the advancement curve seeing as I enlisted as an E-1.

Originally Posted by The Third Man (Post 1468691)

Wow. Just wow. Why are you so heated by my answer? Did I hit a cord?

Do you feel you could have done more in defense of your country? Do you feel guilty now because of your current feelings about nuclear deterence?

is it just because you feel your pride for the question?

I mean nothing bad. I'm just trying to share my opinion, and reconcile it with the answers.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1468687)

Or the soldiers on the 38th Parallel
Or the soldiers of the Tet Offensive
Or the soldiers in the Bay of Pigs
Or the soldiers in Iraq
Or the soldiers in Afghanistan

Come on, this is just getting silly now.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1468692)

Now, see, this is why people don't want to play with you, so to speak. You can't seem to interact with someone with an opposing viewpoint without insulting them. Why such anger?