The morality of nuclear retalitation.

[emzie]

Secondary question. What if Country B's retaliation would result in a nuclear winter, where as a lack of retaliation would ensure the survival of humanity?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I might as well answer first - do it anyway. If I'm going down, I'm taking the world with me.

 

[Core Imposter]

Big-government Republicans

Actually I am an anti-big government Federalist conservative, but whatever.

 

[Cutlass]

Would the US have dropped the bomb if Japan had the ability to retaliate equally?

It would have been a fundamentally different war if Japan had had that kind of power.

Both Britain and Germany firebombed each other's cities. Had they both had nukes, I expect they would have both nuked each other's cities.

 

[Core Imposter]

Secondary question. What if Country B's retaliation would result in a nuclear winter, where as a lack of retaliation would ensure the survival of humanity?

See, there you go. Environmental wackerey. Nuclear winter is just another theoretical doctrine from the church of Gaia.

What if pushing the button gets me hot sex from the interns cowering in the White House corridors?

And where in this equation is the special bunkers for the political elite and the plans for carrying on the government after a general nuclear exchange?

And did you forget Ronald Reagan already built Star Wars?

Edit: We win. They lost.

 

[red_elk]

would it actually be the right thing to do for nation A?

Definitely, yes.

Would it be the moral thing to do?

May be not. Soldiers on a battlefield have to do immoral things.

 

[emzie]

See, there you go. Environmental wackerey. Nuclear winter is just another theoretical doctrine from the church of Gaia.

So you're proposing we can set of say, a thousand megaton yield nuclear warheads within a few day span and nothing bad will happen?

What if pushing the button gets me hot sex from the interns cowering in the White House corridors?

Well that is a hypothetical question you could ask. The point of a hypothetical and all isn't if it's precisely realistic.

 

[jtb1127]

In a detatched and objective sense, I think retaliation is an immoral and futile action. If the bluff fails, there is really no point [objectively] in going ahead with a retaliatory strike.

[Which is why, for the bluff to succeed, the people in charge need to be the kind of lunatics who would launch anyway].


Hmm.. first person to vote no

Deontologically, in order to determine the morality of an action, this action must be detached. For the question posed in the OP, regarding the morality of using a nuclear weapon, the answer would have to be no. However, the question in the poll was "Would you?" Despite my knowledge of the intrinsically immoral action of retaliation, I would do so anyway due to amoral factors that should logically be considered. Acting strictly as a moral actor, my response would have been no as well, but I am detached from morality to an extent so to honestly answer the question, the answer is yes.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

And did you forget Ronald Reagan already built Star Wars?

1. Reagan never built Star Wars.
2. The country you're in charge of in this hypothetical scenario is never said to be America. Ever.

 

[Takhisis]

Atrocities on one side make atrocities by the other side acceptable, obviously.

(I voted No).

 

[red_elk]

And did you forget Ronald Reagan already built Star Wars?

In this scenario he didn't. Because it would make retaliation from country A impossible

 

[kramerfan86]

So the people left behind can say: "hey, the system works!". I believe that MAD is maddness, and that we are only lucky that we didn't have to apply the philosophy. We don't even know wether it works or not.
All said and done, I would certainly not push the button as the inhumane consequences of that action would only be slightly mitigated by the fact that the others 'started first'.

Then nation B will just nuke another country in the future. Once they have shown the psychotic desire to nuke nation A off the planet its only a matter of time before nation C gets it. Once the illusion of MAD is gone it would be open season for nuclear warfare. So if the choice is 2 nations bite the dust or 50 nations bite the dust, sorry A and B, you must both go.

 

[Core Imposter]

1. Reagan never built Star Wars.
2. The country you're in charge of in this hypothetical scenario is never said to be America. Ever.

1. Prove it.
2. If the incoming missles are American then all hope is lost anyway BECAUSE THEY(we) HAVE STAR WARS.

 

[emzie]

1. Prove it.
2. If the incoming missles are American then all hope is lost anyway BECAUSE THEY(we) HAVE STAR WARS.

Prove Reagan didn't build star wars? Seeing as you just asked for something that is logically impossible, you are not looking to have a discussion, you are looking to talk at people. Therefor, seeing as this is a discussion forum, you forfeit this thread. Good day.

 

[Leoreth]

It's pretty obvious George Lucas built Star Wars. Just watch the credits of any given episode.

 

[Arwon]

Oh this thread just became magnificent.

 

[Takhisis]

He produced Star Wars. He didn't even direct it!

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

1. Prove it.
2. If the incoming missles are American then all hope is lost anyway BECAUSE THEY(we) HAVE STAR WARS.

1. Prove he did. The onus of proof is on the person claiming, not the person disputing.
2. Again, NOWHERE is America mentioned. Not anywhere. Not as an enemy, not as a friend. You're, again, stepping outside the bounds of the scenario, which makes your opinion on it rather useless.

 

[woody60707]

Moral? What's that got to do with anything. No, it's pretty immoral to nuke a whole nation. It's kinda immoral to type away on a computer while kids are dying from starvation in world. If we always did what was moral, all the moral people would be dead.

 

[kramerfan86]

Wait, there are people actually believe star wars was secretly completed?