Nukes as deterrents

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by .Andy, Feb 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. .Andy, Feb 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2012

    .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #1
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
    nuclear weapons are an offensive weapon. You can't use them to defend yourself without destroying your self or more than the individual(s) assaulting you.

    Nice try though. Seen that one plenty of times and fortunately it's an easy one to counter.
     
  3. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #3
    Yeah, because guns are actually hand shields. Not offensive at all.
     
  4. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #4
    Guns can be used to defend yourself. A nuclear weapon can't.

    Big difference.

    Nice try though.
     
  5. niuniu, Feb 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2012

    niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #5
    Aye because the US was destroyed in Hiroshima wasn't it?

    Anyone that doesn't understand that nukes aren't a deterrent shouldn't be discussing them methinks.

    Those cases have no mention of bullying or alien landings or rainbows either, what a waste of time.

    You're all mixed up.
     
  6. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #6
    Yeah confusing way of putting it. The reason nuclear weapons are a deterrent is because of mutually assured destruction.
     
  7. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #7
    Actually nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon. That is what mutually assured destruction is all about. Guns are the same deal but only smaller scale.
     
  8. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #8
    Just mentioned in the previous post that my wording was confusing.

    The rest of your post though is just garbage. I easily demonstrated how each one of those cases can be attributed to bullying.

    Just give it a rest. You were wrong on the internet on multiple counts. It's ok.

    ----------

    Offensive. hiroshima

    They only become defensive when mutually assured destruction is present.

    That is what mutually assured destruction is all about.


    not even in the same universe as a nuclear weapon in regards to relating the two.

    For instance. it's impossible to detonate a nuclear weapon without destroying yourself and home in the case of a robbery, and creating fallout as well as leveling your town, a city, etc... When those things occur, you've inflicted on the rights of others and you've become offensive, IE initiation of force.

    A gun, while sure it can hit a bystander with a bullet, can be both offensive and defensive because of the scale of the weapon.

    It's really quite simple. Logical even.
     
  9. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #9
    I (and others) are pointing out that your assertion that nuclear weapons are always offensive is incorrect. MAD is what kept the cold war from going hot.

    You are just proving my point. Hand guns can create collateral damage. In the hands of a clown during a drive-by, it seems only old ladies and random by-standers get killed by guns. It is again just a question of scale. Not all nuclear weapons are designed for wholesale destruction of cities. For example, tactical nuclear weapons are intended for the very purpose of destroying aggregate enemy armor formations in symmetric warfare.
     
  10. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #10
    I'm by no means an expert, but I doubt you can just buy a fully armed tank / fighter jet?

    In many European countries, there are shooting ranges where you can practice.

    There are special licenses for hunting in other countries than the US.
     
  11. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #11
    And what are the characteristics of MAD?

    Well I was proving it wrong. Yeah.

    Not always, which is part of the difference.

    Nuclear weapons always create collateral damage and produce negative effects on entire populations of people, not just a robber and perhaps a stray passerby.

    Except those weapons still destroy vast swaths of an area, produce fallout, etc.... And you can never use it as a practical deterrent.

    Unless you can construct some hypothetical scenario in which somebody comes and robs you, and you detonate a nuclear weapon without causing much collateral damage and not killing yourself, you're just going to have to accept the fact that you're simply wrong.

    ----------

    You can buy both with the weapons intact. Though they aren't "supposed" to function.


    And?


    And?

    In what ways do those negate a practical reason for owning a firearm?

    And you forgot to respond to the point of people defending themselves against wild animals. Which is a valid concern in many areas. Farmers use them to ward off coyotes for example.

    and that's all beside the ridiculous notion that one individual has a right to tell another individual what they can buy because of their own "safety" concerns.

    ----------

    Yes. In fact, you haven't addressed a single point, nor provided references for your claims.

    Until you do so, you forfeit the argument.
     
  12. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #12
    I don't quite understand why you seem to fail to grasp the concept of scale. Nor do I understand why you cling to your falsifiable assertion that nuclear weapons are only for offensive purposes. I am not campaigning for an individual's right to bear nuclear weapons; simply correcting a false assertion you made that nuclear weapons are only for offensive purposes.

    Not all nuclear weapons have this effect. Feel free to look up neutron bomb.
     
  13. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Nope. Only used for offensive purposes. In MAD the weapons are not used.

    Um ok? This is related to the discussion how? Did you read the effects of a neutron bomb?

    I'll quote for you:

    " Although their extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated, it is the enormous radiation released by ERWs that is meant to be a major source of casualties."

    I highlighted the key points
     
  14. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #14
    Clever turn of phrase but misses the point entirely. In MAD, nuclear weapons are used because it is their existence and potential use that prevents one party from assaulting another. To use something does not always mean consumption.

    Yes, and you asserted that nuclear fallout always is a problem:

    Clearly not all nuclear weapons always are used to destroy cities (i.e. tactical nuclear weapons are intended for battlefield use and typically have limited yield suitable for such purpose) and not all leave behind years of radioactive wasteland (i.e. neutron bomb). Again, I am not arguing for a person's right to bear nuclear weaponry; simply pointing out that nuclear weapons can serve as a defensive measure.
     
  15. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    But they still aren't used, and that's relevant to the context of the discussion.


    So what nuclear weapons don't have fallout and don't destroy vast swaths of land?
     
  16. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #16
    Tactical nukes, as explained in the post you quoted.
     
  17. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #17
    http://www.avitop.com/aircraft/default.asp?location=&type=&sc=type&keyword=&page=1

    That's a listening where you can find many airplanes for sale. Occasinally older fighter aircraft are sold on there, Mig 29s, F4 Phantoms, etc...

    Snoop Dogg doesn't have a pilots license and anybody operating these aircraft have to abide by FAA regulations

    I can imagine plenty of people enjoying their dreams of flying their favorite fighter jet.


    And we also have way more guns, so it follows that criminals will use them for bad things.

    Taking them away from law abiding citizens does nothing to deter this, only leaves the population defenseless.

    Though if you want you can look at a interesting case study:

    In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia’s less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia’s largest city with almost 400,000 residents, has had one of the lowest rates of murder in the country — 4.1 per 100,000.

    Link

    Irrelevant to the discussion.


    What if they want to hung one year and then the next they are too busy to go hunting? Is the government going to reimburse them for the sale of the gun and take it away? Otherwise you're just going to have people getting one time hunting permits, legit or not, and then keeping the guns.

    ----------

    You guys are killing me...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon


    Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Even something that is a fraction of what was used in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would devastate a large radius and lead to fallout.

    You guys literally have no clue as to what you're talking about, and it shows.
     
  18. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #18
    Listen to yourselves. You're trying to justify banning or restricting gun sales by saying that nuclear weapons can be used in self defense and that they aren't that destructive.

    What is this I don't even....
     
  19. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #19
    The article you posted mentions a tactical nuke with a yield of 0.3 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded with an energy between 13 and 18 kilotons, which is about 50 times as much. Oh snap!
     
  20. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #20
    Not people though.
     
  21. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #21
    You can make up whatever wild single use hypothetical case you want, but it doesn't detract from the main point.

    Quote me.

    In any but the most extreme case which literally requires you to own vast swaths of land, and somehow not create fallout that will drift into other areas.

    Nope. Nobody could really do it if the wanted to anyway. The expertise and cost associated are unobtainable by any individual.

    No. There is no line when regarding nuclear weapons. You're "line" rests on an extreme hypothetical case which requires absurd principles that detract from the point of gun ownership, which is defending ones self from the violent actions of another. You can't take your nuclear weapon with you anywhere, because you'll kill yourself using it and blow up a town and cause fall out. You can take your gun with you. You can use your gun for self defense anytime without causing massive devastation.

    Exception doesn't prove the rule. And in this case your exception rests on a scenario that isn't even helpful for somebody defending themselves.

    case closed.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    North Korea? Israel? Pakistan? India? Soon maybe Iran. Seems to work quite well, actually.
     
  23. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    :rolleyes:

    Don't be disingenuous.

    Refer to the rest of this post regarding the practical affect and how the nature of a nuclear weapon of any kind detracts from self defense.

    ----------

    So where have they been used to defend a country? So far the US is the only country to ever utilize a nuclear weapon, of course it was for offense, because that's the only way the weapon can ever work.

    ----------

    Nope. I've never claimed that. Nice try.
     
  24. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #24
    But a tank or a fighter jet is helpful for defense in such a scenario?
     
  25. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    You totally missed the point. It's about trading your liberties for securities. IE trading your guns for the security of not being shot.

    What a hodgepodge.

    My AR-15 keeps me protected against intruders into my home. Actually, since I don't own one it would be my Sig 229.

    Oh, btw. I'm a civilian and I'm far more experienced with a firearm than just about any police officer.

    What liberty is being exchanged for security?

    I guess you could say the government is stealing tax money, and I'd agree. But other than that....

    ad hom

    Irrelevant. Why shouldn't you be able to own a firearm?

    And this is completely beside the fact that taking away firearms means only criminals have them, and defeats the purpose.

    ----------

    Not necessarily. Though you can hide in a tank or fly away in a fighter jet.

    Either way, the weapons aren't functioning when they are sold so who the hell cares?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page