Saudi arabia said lebanon declared war against them

Author Topic: Saudi arabia said lebanon declared war against them  (Read 5389 times)


Can we just nuke the Middle East already?

Can we just nuke the Middle East already?
Too many people are like "Oh let's not do that because it's immoral and will kill innocents," thus sustaining the current situation, for long enough that it eventually will cause even more lives to be lost than a nuke would've brought, in time.

Too many people are like "Oh let's not do that because it's immoral and will kill innocents," thus sustaining the current situation, for long enough that it eventually will cause even more lives to be lost than a nuke would've brought, in time.
ummmmmmmm

ummmmmmmm
Just saying my thoughts on the situation with the idea of nuking (most areas in the middle east)

have you ever thought about how the number of wars in the middle east seems to have drastically increased ever since the fall of the Ottomans

Too many people are like "Oh let's not do that because it's immoral and will kill innocents," thus sustaining the current situation, for long enough that it eventually will cause even more lives to be lost than a nuke would've brought, in time.
so what you're saying is that we should've just dropped a nuke on the national socialists because it would have "benefited the greater good"

so what you're saying is that we should've just dropped a nuke on the national socialists because it would have "benefited the greater good"

that'd be a good gotcha if the atomic bomb were invented before the national socialists surrendered

so what you're saying is that we should've just dropped a nuke on the national socialists because it would have "benefited the greater good"
If you care about numbers (of lives), in time, if the national socialists were not stopped then the number of deaths (caused by them in this case) would simply go up. If you would've nuked them before the number of deaths (caused by them) rose higher than the nuke would cause then you'd technically cause less deaths to happen (due to a likely surrender). However that is using hindsight to judge because it's getting a death count from the future.

I have no explicitly stated about if we should or should not use nuclear weaponry but I do believe to stall will still just cause the deaths to rise continually regardless. I don't think to cause death is right in any case but self-defense is the least immoral form of causing death.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 04:26:48 PM by Kamutog »

Too many people are like "Oh let's not do that because it's immoral and will kill innocents," thus sustaining the current situation, for long enough that it eventually will cause even more lives to be lost than a nuke would've brought, in time.

Bombing japan probably saved more lives.

that'd be a good gotcha if the atomic bomb were invented before the national socialists surrendered
shame on me for not caring about chronological order of a war 80 years ago. damn, looks like my point is completely invalidated.
If you care about numbers (of lives), in time, if the national socialists were not stopped then the number of deaths (caused by them in this case) would simply go up. If you would've nuked them before the number of deaths (caused by them) rose higher than the nuke would cause then you'd technically cause less deaths to happen. However that is using hindsight to judge because it's getting a death count from the future.

I have no explicitly stated about if we should or should not use nuclear weaponry but I do believe to stall will still just cause the deaths to rise continually regardless. I don't think to cause death is right in any case but self-defense is the least immoral form of causing death.
i think it's handicapped, inhumane, and downright cowardly to decide to massacre hundreds of millions of people, most of want nothing to do with CIA or whatever the terrorism catch of the day is. it's honestly repulsive that you think that bombing a whole region of the world, one the size of a small continent at that, for the sake of stopping terrorism
not to say that something to that caliber will never be the answer, but until the whole world of the middle east has become literal 1984 it's a horrible prospect and certainly not even close to a last resort

the fact that we talk about how many innocent people them god darned isil terrorists kill with such disgust, then continue to talk about how we should "just kill em" as the best answer to a problem is nationalism at its finest and complete hypocrisy

Why would you ever want to nuke national socialist's? 🤔

shame on me for not caring about chronological order of a war 80 years ago. damn, looks like my point is completely invalidated.i think it's handicapped, inhumane, and downright cowardly to decide to massacre hundreds of millions of people, most of want nothing to do with CIA or whatever the terrorism catch of the day is. it's honestly repulsive that you think that bombing a whole region of the world, one the size of a small continent at that, for the sake of stopping terrorism
not to say that something to that caliber will never be the answer, but until the whole world of the middle east has become literal 1984 it's a horrible prospect and certainly not even close to a last resort

the fact that we talk about how many innocent people them god darned isil terrorists kill with such disgust, then continue to talk about how we should "just kill em" as the best answer to a problem is nationalism at its finest and complete hypocrisy
The reason why people end up brushing over the fact that innocents would die due to nuclear weaponry, in this middle-east-nuclear-bombing hypothetical scenario at least, is that innocents would die either way. So a nuclear weapon may end up causing said number of innocent deaths to be lower.

I do agree with you on saying it is repulsive to kill innocents. I do not advocate against or for nuclear weaponry however; this world is its own and I should not have judgment upon its acts since I can only do... nothing. I think you're trying to see what I say and get a feel for how I actually feel on the matter when I am just trying to state a scenario I see being likely to play out.

The reason why people end up brushing over the fact that innocents would die due to nuclear weaponry, in this middle-east-nuclear-bombing hypothetical scenario at least, is that innocents would die either way. So a nuclear weapon may end up causing said number of innocent deaths to be lower.

I do agree with you on saying it is repulsive to kill innocents. I do not advocate against or for nuclear weaponry however; this world is its own and I should not have judgment upon its acts since I can only do... nothing. I think you're trying to see what I say and get a feel for how I actually feel on the matter when I am just trying to state a scenario I see being likely to play out.
how would dropping nukes on the middle east even remotely fix anything or kill less people

how would dropping nukes on the middle east even remotely fix anything or kill less people
They'd be too busy dealing with mutated wildlife and ghouls to focus on war.