Penny for Your Thoughts discussion

The world would be a different place.

Well, I don't know how different. Other than the two dropped on Japan, no nukes have ever been used. So the nukes themselves haven't made a large difference. However, some people believe that if "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" hadn't been dropped, casualties would have been much higher due to continued fighting. Then again, WMDs were the excuse that Bush used to invade Iraq, and the casualties of that war are insane. Environmentally, testing nukes hasn't been exactly a helpful thing. But weapon technology marches on. We aren't stabbing people with pointy sticks anymore. Something might eventually surpass the nuke in destructive capabilities.

Why isnt there a 'like' button for comments? :)
Well summarised Rudy!
Btw I was talkin about all of WMDs not only nukes.
No Hiroshima, Nagasaki disaster. No Cuban Missile Crisis, which threatened to wipe out humanity.
MAYBE no Chernobyl and 8 Mile disasters, eventhough they were not related to weapons.
No Phosphorous bombs, which were chemical WMDs used in Vietnam.
And yea, Iraq war was based on it. So much devastation...

But as I stated, they have helped. In a bit of a odd way. Casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less than the predicted death total that would have happened if the war had continued. I doubt the thing about Chernobyl and 8 mile, those were due to nuclear power problems, which is independant of nukes/WMDs. And the Cuban Missle Crisis ended up with very little/no casualties. So I'm sticking with the idea that WMDs haven't really ruined the world. BTW, don't space that way. Ivi will throw a fit.

They have not exactly ruined the world. But they have brought about panic.
Without them, the above mentioned landmarks in time would not be there. New and different combat technologies would appear.
WW2 would not have such a swift end.
Rofl, whatsup with Ivi?

Before we get into a huge fight about this, I'd like to say that I'm not for nuking people. I'm just presenting why it isn't a bad thing. There are four main reasons why nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved lives. Again, these reasons are debatable but I'd still like to put them out there.

Bombing was probably safer than invading. Operation Downfall, the invasion plan against Japan, probably would have ended up with 1.6 million casualties from the US alone, including about 400k deaths. Millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were also anticipated. The AFA reported that millions of citizens had been told to resist by attacking with bamboo spears and suicide bombing. The Japanese Cabinet had approved the extension of the draft to include another 28 million people, most of which would have died. They also had given orders to execute all PoWs if an invasion took place.

Since the bombing ended the war there, casualties stopped going up. If it had continued, it is predicted that the deaths would have produced upward to 250k corpses a month, mostly Asians but some Westerners. I'm not going to go into detail about firebombings and forced labors, because I don't have extensive numbers for those.

Japanese leaders also refused to surrender. Politically, they were adamant and believed that the American morale wasn't high enough, and large losses in the beginning of the invasion would force the americans to surrender themselves. The civilian leaders did attempt to negotiate peace, but they couldn't negotiate surrender or cease-fires due to lack of political power.

I didnt know we were fighting :D. You thought we were gonna fight?
Wow..you know quite a lot!
*in a meek voice*I was just sayin what would be the changes in a WMD-free world.
*even meeker voice*i never said you are into nuking people. Nuking Japan was the only "viable" option, not the good option. So it would hurt the sentiments of people, especially the Japs. I am sure you never meant such a thing.
No fight..ok?

No worries, I had no desire to get into an argument. However, people tend to get a little bit angry when one starts to talk about wars. For very good reasons. I don't actually know that much, but I do know how to use wikipedia. XD

I just wanted to present this argument because of your comment involving "It's not a good thing to say". I just think that the "Why" is a good thing to think about. I agree the world has changed because of WMDs. I'm just not sure how much, or if it would be a better place. And I agree. It wasn't a good thing ethically.

Ivi doesn't like people who space excessively. It annoys her.

:o Are you from the US?
A lot of things seem to annoy Ivi haha
What is your avatar about?

Yes I am.

Rudyards wrote: "Yes I am."

That explains the patriotism :) *no offence*
What is your avatar about? It looks as if he is about to release a beyblade.

I wouldn't call it patriotism, but I do agree I'm a little defensive. But when the question talks about WMDs, the country that has dropped the most/only nukes does get a lot of flak.

Thats a sword. A little hard to tell.

lol.. The thing to appreciate is that you dont give in to those "flakking" you :)
A sword? Hmm...hard to tell. Is it from a game or something?
Gtg..have a nice day

A WMD is a double-edged sword. If a both countries both have them, it's a one-on-one. All it takes is a push of a button to destroy a whole country.

Okay, I don't want to seem excessively picky and destroy your wonderfully philosophical quote there, but its doubtable one nuke would destroy most of the bigger countries. Some of the smaller european ones maybe. But probably not Russia, China, or the US. Additionally, several major countries have highly advanced early warning systems, making nukes easier to detect. One nuke isn't going to destroy a country. But with reactions, it might destroy several. Thats why nuclear was is a bad idea. No one comes out alive.

One nuke on Moscow, NY or Beijing...and the next moment boom! Whoosh!! Screaaams
One push of a button...and the other retaliates...and its MW3!! HAHAHA!!

No, it's what would've happened when MGS Peace Walker actually succeeded in the video game. Nuclear retaliation. The whole world destroyed because of a miscalculation in mens' brains.


You see, nowadays, they have stealth bombers. If the scientists find out a new way to preform the same thing with rockets, we're all doomed.

The stealth missiles concept is impractical right now. But the future holds many promises. Also, there is the concentrated laser tech being developed, Which can destroy missiles and it has very few limitations.
There is a movie called 'Sum of all Fears'. Do watch it.

PHEW PHEW PHEWPHEW PHEW! BOOM!

Fun Fact: Incendiary bombing of Tokyo killed more people than both atom bombs combined :D

"Sum of all Fears..." Is that based on a Tom Clancy novel?

Yes it is.

That might be named "Interesting Fact" but I don't see how that's fun... Anyway, nice fact though. But is that possible?

Tokyo was made of paper and bamboo. Which properties do those materials both have that would make incendiary bombs incredibly effective? :p

Yeah, that makes sense.

They had metal to build airplanes, but nooooo, instead of reinforcing houses, let's all BUILD AIRPLANES!

If WMDs were never created, then the whole world would constantly be in war. Without a weapon of mass destruction that could erase human history in one blast, one bomb, everything would be a disaster. Without the threat of mass destruction in everyone's hands, the chaos unleashed without them would be greater than the chaos unleashed by using them. That's one of the good reasons why WMDs should stay.