In class we were talking about weapons of mass-destruction and this had me thinking about why we even have them. If we all agree a weapon that can destroy a whole city is wrong than why do we create them? Why don’t we just destroy them instead of creating more effective ways to use them? Wouldn’t the smart thing would be to defuse them? As far as I know we have them all hidden someone where for “just in case” times. Are they truly safe way? What does that tell us about the world? Does anyone have any thoughts?
posted by Sage at 1:42 PM
3 Comments:
As Spock said, "The good of the many out weigh the needs of the few." It is true that destroying an entire city is wrong, but destroying an entire nation is far worse. (I am somewhat prejudiced because my grandpa would have been sent to attack Japan if we hadn't dropped the bomb...)
However, now, it might be that this weapon is a neccessary evil. At least, it's not a biochemical weapon, which causes a lot more pain upon death. The simple fact that we have this technology is enough to "strong arm" some smaller countries out of creating their own bombs. America is trying to be the policeman for the world and to do that it needs a gun.
Now whether we should be so involved in international affairs is another question, one which I don't have a good answer to.
Gota love the the Star Trek Wrath of Khan movie quote, and I agree with Spock as well. Now to my point. The world currently and through out history has been filled with evil and destructive people, people that are willing to kill and go to war to acheive their goals. Humans have been killing each other since the begining of time and will continue to do so until the end of earth (Jesus coming, Armagedon, etc). To perform all the acts of killing and warfare humans have also created a rather interesting history of weapons. Before I lost my access to dish tv by coming to NW, I used to watch a show on the History Channel called Weapons of War. I observed all the various forms of weapons that humans created through out history and they all shared a similar trend at time passed: increasing killing efficiency. Weapons have been steadly increasing in their ability to kill large numbers as quickly as possible,this fact is not shocking it only follows the pattern shown by history. It is no wonder than that the Atom bomb was created and used.
The big issue is whether we should use them or not. America justified the use of the A-bomb on Japan by saying that Japan refused to surrender and by dropping the bomb they were saving American soldiers lives. How were we suppose to convince a society to surrender that endorsed kamikaze fighters and suicide rather than surrender. This is really getting long winded so ill close up
The idea that we all can get along and have peace is naive and futile. It will never happen on this earth, thus the need for weapons to defend a cause and stand up for "whats right" (what right is a matter of ones own perspective and can be argued but I wont get into it). Nuclear weapons are a product of technology and humans constant creation of weapons, we just have to trust the big guys in charge of them...*sigh* Ill end for real now with a quote that my former RA Jessie Scheare said: "Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war has never solved anything"
With my limited knowledge of weapons technology and the formulation of the atomic and later hydrogen bombs (which require the energy of a standard hiroshima style bomb to start), I know that the destructive power in these things is impressive, frightening, etc. I do also know that almost every physicist that worked on the Manhattan Project (which did just this formulation) became opposed to the very weapons they created and pacifists later in life. "The first weapons were developed primarily out of fear that Nazi Germany would develop them first" - (wikipedia.org) This fact along with the fact that the scientists that were working on the project were mostly displaced from central Europe give a little context into the situation the USA was in. The bombs that were created were a countermeasure, even when used in an offensive action against a non-surrendering Japan nearly ready for an invasion force to be sent eastward. Those were trying times, but even so I question the attack on major cities instead of military establishments. Even so, it's really easy to say that it was wrong from our perspective, but immensely more difficult to put ourselves in that time and situation and look for the best course of action. I also agree that war in itself is not wrong, or avoidable altogether.. war is as inevitable as banks and cemeteries. Nice quote Brady, I like that a lot. A group to stand up for what's right is necessary, no matter how futile the history books say the conflicts were.
Post a Comment
<< Home