Latest Breaking News

Javaman

(65,801 posts)

35. Do you honesty believe that there would only be one bomb used?

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 11:43 AM

Jul 2016

Then I have a bridge to sell you.

but suppose only one bomb was used, are you prepared for the massive humanitarian fallout from it's use?

the countless amounts of immediate victims of radiation, the countless amounts of people from long term radiation?

the amount of irradiated water, cattle, crops and land?

this doesn't even take into account the devastating effect it would have on the worlds economy, let along the economy of the region it was dropped on.

do you want to pay that bill if you think just one bomb is okay?

there is no good use of any kind of nuclear bomb. period.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Theresa May says she would kill '100,000 men, women and children' with a nuclear bomb [View all] jakeXT Jul 2016 OP

Same goes for every US President Martin Eden Jul 2016 #1

Question has no context... exactly, .... NotHardly Jul 2016 #11

Not "every nation-state leader on the planet" has control John Poet Jul 2016 #12

the problem is, what our leaders consider justification for military action is usually not yurbud Jul 2016 #30

The leader of any country you can think of Democat Jul 2016 #20

And some will do it on a pretext of lies and conspiracies. n/t ronnie624 Jul 2016 #27

Good God maryellen99 Jul 2016 #2

To be honest there are some scenarios where even I could see them having to use such a weapon cstanleytech Jul 2016 #4

there never any scenarios that they should be used... Javaman Jul 2016 #24

I wasnt thinking of a scenario for use in a war rather a worst case scenario cstanleytech Jul 2016 #31

and that's the irony... Javaman Jul 2016 #32

No its not. One single nuclear weapon does not have the capacity to cause such a winter cstanleytech Jul 2016 #33

Do you honesty believe that there would only be one bomb used? Javaman Jul 2016 #35

Again it all depends on the situation but we are speaking of a single city and a single bomb cstanleytech Jul 2016 #38

we are currently living in an Ice 9 situation with climate change. Javaman Jul 2016 #42

Not at all I am just pointing out that there are simply some albeit statistically unlikely cstanleytech Jul 2016 #43

this is were we will have to disagree. Javaman Jul 2016 #44

And a good day to you to. nt cstanleytech Jul 2016 #45

British female politicians don't screw around ansible Jul 2016 #9

Sure - but this is a descent into rogue state territory. forest444 Jul 2016 #10

No we don't. The US formal reserves the ability to not only use nuclear weapons but to use them as Statistical Jul 2016 #15

the use of nukes in any way shape of form is colossally stupid. Javaman Jul 2016 #25

THIS point is worth repeating ^^^^^^^^ uawchild Jul 2016 #54

They seem to think they have to prove they're tougher than the boys dflprincess Jul 2016 #14

She never read Orwell? cprise Jul 2016 #18

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #51

The tricky part, I guess, uawchild Jul 2016 #3

It wouldn't be tricky at all for a decisive leader like Trump IronLionZion Jul 2016 #5

or because someone said he had small hands... sarae Jul 2016 #26

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #6

Truman would agree. NT Elmergantry Jul 2016 #7

Perhaps if he had the advantage of 70 years of hindsight he would not. nt dflprincess Jul 2016 #13

Unlikely IMHO Elmergantry Jul 2016 #21

so you are saying if Truman saw what we have now, 70 years of perspective and the cold war Javaman Jul 2016 #39

yes. Elmergantry Jul 2016 #46

Truman agreed to a 10 kiloton bomb of which he had no idea of its effects. nt Javaman Jul 2016 #37

afaik Elmergantry Jul 2016 #47

... Javaman Jul 2016 #48

regret Elmergantry Jul 2016 #49

you stated he had no regret. Javaman Jul 2016 #50

well then lets Elmergantry Jul 2016 #59

moving the goal post. very nice. Javaman Jul 2016 #60

i bet u are. Elmergantry Jul 2016 #61

slice and dice it any way you want. Javaman Jul 2016 #62

bu bye! Elmergantry Jul 2016 #63

My goodness!!!! Beacool Jul 2016 #8

Crazy talk locks Jul 2016 #16

Wow -- looking at the recording, I sure think she was much more strident than she should be. Akamai Jul 2016 #17

Put it in perspective - she can't publicly say no daveMN Jul 2016 #19

I hope Obama or Clinton would do the same, if they thought it was necessary. nt. Captain Stern Jul 2016 #22

just for grins... Javaman Jul 2016 #23

What's wrong with responding "It depends . . . . "? no_hypocrisy Jul 2016 #28

I have been studying the cold war and our nuclear arsenal for about 25 years... Javaman Jul 2016 #29

As long as other countries have them I dont see the US agreeing to do that sadly. cstanleytech Jul 2016 #34

of course not, because it's the old concept of the out dated adding machine. Javaman Jul 2016 #36

I dont look at it as being a money issue rather its a trust issue of none of the countries cstanleytech Jul 2016 #40

well of course, but the MIC need for funding outweighs even distrust of other nations. Javaman Jul 2016 #41

Your information is wrong sarisataka Jul 2016 #52

What's the big deal? A nuclear deterrent is no good if you imply you will never use it. Doodley Jul 2016 #53

It's been used TWICE. uawchild Jul 2016 #56

Why would you think I was being sarcastic? Doodley Jul 2016 #57

She shouldn't be in that job if she couldn't answer "yes"... Blue_Tires Jul 2016 #55

Exactly. The most dangerous thing is for one side to think they could win. Doodley Jul 2016 #58