Is a nuclear strike ever justifiable?

TMP

Ancient Pyro Main
aa
Aug 11, 2008
947
560
I just had an immense fear arise in me, of a nuclear strike. Its something I never want to live through.

So I had to ask the question to this community.

Is there ever a case where a nuclear strike is justifiable?

My personal thought? I don't even want to think about it. I'm terrified of even thinking about it. The use of it on civilians... is terrifying. In a war setting, on the battlefield, a tactical nuke has applications and I don't disagree with that. But a strike on any civilian area... is not justifiable in my books.
 
Sep 1, 2009
573
323
I'd consider it murder

"Remember when the platform was sliding into the fire pit and I said 'Goodbye' and you were like 'No way' and then I was all 'We pretended we were going to murder you'? That was great."

In reality there is no justisify-able way to nuke a populated area of civillians.
 

WastedMeerkat

L3: Member
Aug 15, 2009
144
142
I just had an immense fear arise in me, of a nuclear strike. Its something I never want to live through.

So I had to ask the question to this community.

Is there ever a case where a nuclear strike is justifiable?

My personal thought? I don't even want to think about it. I'm terrified of even thinking about it. The use of it on civilians... is terrifying. In a war setting, on the battlefield, a tactical nuke has applications and I don't disagree with that. But a strike on any civilian area... is not justifiable in my books.

When a country goes to war, it puts the safety of its citizens at risk. It should be prepared for a nuclear strike if it seems likely to happen. I don't know if it's ever justifiable, but if you're referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was the easiest way to end the war and it was a good opportunity to finally use the nuclear bomb.

Back then nobody else had any bombs to counter us with, but now they do. If anybody were to fire a bomb, then the whole world would suddenly be in a Mexican standoff. Nobody's going to fire a bomb for that very reason. I say you shouldn't worry about it.
 

Okrag

Wall Staples
aa
Jun 10, 2009
1,029
655
When a country goes to war, it puts the safety of its citizens at risk. It should be prepared for a nuclear strike if it seems likely to happen. I don't know if it's ever justifiable, but if you're referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was the easiest way to end the war and it was a good opportunity to finally use the nuclear bomb.

Back then nobody else had any bombs to counter us with, but now they do. If anybody were to fire a bomb, then the whole world would suddenly be in a Mexican standoff. Nobody's going to fire a bomb for that very reason. I say you shouldn't worry about it.

Nuclear Weapons are a Mexican standoff. It is all about deterrence and stalemates.
 
Mar 23, 2010
1,872
1,696
America doesn't need justification. We are above that (and everyone else).
 

Exist

L6: Sharp Member
Oct 31, 2009
306
136
Russia uses nukes to blow up oil spills. -Insert in Russia joke here-
 

Radaka

L420: High Member
May 24, 2009
491
244
Innocent civilians should never be subject to the horrors of war. If an army forces it on them, that army... should be doomed to suffer for eternity.
 

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
Has this got anything to do with the North Korean Standoff?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10748148

If you're dealing with war over land nuclear weapons are a terribly inaffective weapon as they scar the landscape. But for simply striking an enemy for the sakes of dealing a critical blow it's a scary prospect. Particularly when it comes to terrorism and civilians.
 
Last edited:

gastrop0d

L3: Member
Apr 22, 2009
110
33
Is war justifiable at all? What difference is it what weapon or scale the violence is on, or the reasons. Murder is murder, and that is insanity.

Given that, any justification from an insane mindset is meaningless.
 

Terr

Cranky Coder
aa
Jul 31, 2009
1,590
410
The issue isn't nuclear weapons at all. The actual mechanism is a red-herring.

The real issue is "innocents" and the shades of conflict that fall short of "total war".

Ultimately it becomes about social dynamics: Where is the line dividing "friend of my enemy is my enemy" from "friend of my enemy is uninvolved", and then is the quantity enough that it can be justified/rationalized.

Only Sith deal in absolutes. Nobody else does. EVER.
 
Last edited:

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
Some might say the war was already over and that America rushed to nuke Japan before their surrender was officially announced. It was their last opportunity to use it in the war and using it afterwards would call for more moral questions to be asked than already are.

But who knows whether that conspiracy is true or not. It's a matter of opinion at the end of the day, after all, on whether it was warranted. None of us were there, that's for sure.