Nuclear weapons without radiation


Nuclear weapons without radiation  

99 members have voted

  1. 1. Would conventional weapons with the same amount of raw destructive power as a nuclear weapon be any more acceptable?

    • No, the destructive power is the issue.
      43
    • Yes, the radiation is the issue.
      47
    • No Opinion/Not Sure
      9


Recommended Posts

Notthing is acceptable, Human killing Humans isn't correct PERIOD.

If by correct you mean that it's not the best possible scenario, I agree. However, one man defending his family from being tortured, raped, killed, etc. by killing the attacker instead -- that is not wrong. In fact, it would be grossly unloving of the man to watch that happen to his family and do nothing to intervene.

Radiation...evil? That doesn't even make any sense. Radiation is unhealthy. Evil is a moral issue. It is expressed in actions, not substances. Radiation is part of physical reality. It is neither evil nor good. It can be used to kill off cancer. If it IS evil, then no one should be getting x-rays or CT scans. *sigh to self*

Edited by Catharsis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worked against the Nazi's didnt it...

No, but it did work against the Japanese.

Oh, and just for the record, I think it would be great if the radioactive side effect could be taken away from nuclear weapons. They'd still be an immediate threat, though not as threatening. The reality of this coming true however -- I don't really see it happening. Sounds like a pipe dream to me. I'm not saying that they can't make it, but I doubt countries who carry radioactive nukes will give them up. And terrorists certainly won't.

I couldn't really answer the poll, because the wording made no sense. It should have said, "NO, the radiation is the important factor," and "YES, the destructive power is the important factor."

Edited by Catharsis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously do not see a point in any of this. If a weapon was created to become the equivalent of a nuclear weapon minus the radiation, even if it is used don't you think whoever it is used upon will be screwed anyway?

People seem to think that using a different method of killing another person is somehow better than the former. Weapons do not kill people. People kill people.

How about getting rid of the second amendment? THat probably will save more lives than "making more powerful weapons so there will be no radition" ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any weapon used to cause mass or singular killing is wrong.

Nuclear weapons will one day eventually destroy this planet. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is pretty amusing that we already have enough weapons to blanket the planet 10x over with, yet we just keep striving for that bomb that will wipe a country off the map in one go. Early 2000's I remember reading in time magazine that the US was developing new 'Bunker Busting' Nuclear Weapons. Capable of destroying mass amounts below the surface. the bomsb would be some 450x that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In any case dropping a nuke or any bigger type of weapon in todays age would require some extraordinary circumstances, and I dont see 'but the bomb had no radioactive sideeffects' being much of a winning statement that is going to justify using weapons with radioactive fallout or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.