Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

Glancealot: Sounds like a good plan. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Edit: maybe the person to propose the topic for debate could also make the first point. No personal opinion, just expand on it a bit more to give people more to talk about.

IMO there's nothing wrong with expressing a personal opinion in a debate either. Simply quoting factiods to each other or repeating what other people have said can get a bit dull. What an individual brings to the discussion is the chance for a potentially unique point of view that can give people a whole new perspective on things. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Glance, the whipeing out of two major Japanese cities with millions of normal pepole just like you and me killed was limited collateral damage compared to the saveing of some thousands of lifes of allied soldiers? Erm... how do you reason? Did you reason at all?

And now over to the stopping of the world was thing: NOTE: Thist is something I read at a site on the internet, so if it's true or not is a matter of speculations!

On this site I got the following facts (we can still speculate if they were facts). The USA didn't have to drop the bombs in order to win the war. In fact, the Japanese offered a peace around January 1945 ie about eight months before the bombs were dropped. Their only demand was to keep ther emperor. The US couldn't let them do that! So instead the kept the war running. Somewere in the early months (around Mars Aprill somewere, can't rember when, the official date when the war ended was in September when the Japanese officially surrendered) they captured Berlin and defeated the Germans. Hitler comitted suicide.
So, now the major REASON why they built the bomb was deleted (they built it because they thought Hitler was doing the same thing. He was not, if I don't remember wrongly.). And still the sientists said afterwards (unofficial, but still mentioned on this site) that they didn't work harder than the last months of the war (ie after the main reason was deleted). At the same time american soldiers were killed by Japanese soldiers who allso were killed. But still they had to fight on even though they would obviously loose. Because they weren't allowed to surrender. When they finnished the bomb they fired it. On Hiroshima, who wwere wiped out completely. The Japanese were begging, but the US still dropped a second bomb, on Nagasaki. Then the Japanese were allowed to surrender. The reason they weren't allowed to surrender in January was because they whanted to keep the emperor. When they finaly surrendered, in September, they got to keep the emperor anywhay...
And you know what the main reason why USA dropped the bomb was? To show up infront ot the Communists ie Sovjet. They whanted to show them that they were in front. When Truman ignored the promises Roseveld (or whatever his predecessor's name was) had given to Stalin, and we had the cold war on our hands. Truman had probably never done that if he hadn't had the bombs. So, the bombs were acually the main reason the cold war started in the first place! (Still, acording to this site, who acually was based on a book. Don't know if the book existed though, but it's interesting facts anywhay, don't you think?)

Übereil

<sigh>

Yes, Übereil, I know all that - and more...

Then WHY post that? Arguing with false facts isn't very smart. And I argued with facts, they're very fragile, but they're still facts...

Übereil

My feel about nuclearbombs in general is well described by a Björn Afzelius song. Or as a matter of fact a part from a song (called vad bryr jag mig om varför, in English roughly What do I care about why?):

Jag såg raketer ställas ut.
En rad av bomber utan slut.
Ett feluppfattat ord
så har vi ingen jord.
Vad bryr jag mig om varför dom kom till.

I saw rockets being put out.
A line of bombs without an end.
A misunderstood word
and earth will be no more.
What do I care about why they were created.

Übereil

@ Ubereil

Be careful with your words. Your last post don't look very friendly.

Barta

Does Swedish look hostile or something? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Oh, you meant the other one! Well I guess it didn't... I didn't intend to make it hostile though, I was just questioning his debate tecnique...

Übereil

UB: Glance was merely trying to state an argument FOR nuclear weapons. It doesn't necessarily mean he believes it.

He's trying to get us to not argue with our hearts but with our brains. This is the very point of civilised debate. Something I have to thank him for showing me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

I liked your main post of the history of Hiroshima though UB. I learned something myself. Just try to keep the post count down a bit in this thread please? I don't like my topic spammed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

i don’t know much about politics, military strategy, or history but i wonder if perhaps nuclear defence has a ‘use by date’. (food and stuff here has a ‘use by’ date stamped on it, and after that date it either goes off or it’s not so good).

maybe it’s the same with the bombs – the strategy has reached its ‘use by’ date and doesn’t work too well now. it was OK when there were only couple of superpower countries with the bomb, but now the number is growing and the chance of people other than nations or states getting a form of bomb seems to be increasing. supposedly the bomb had an effect on keeping peace, but this seemed to have been something of an illusion – they just kept on fighting wars in the regular way. and terrorist tactics seem to have made nuclear defences irrelevant anyway.

i don’t know if the bomb ever really did do any ‘good’ but it does seem to have reached its ‘use by’ date. i just hope that doesn’t mean it’s about to go off. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

the question seems to be not so much did they ever do any good, but is there any way we could ever get rid of them now? in both cases the answer is probably no.

[color:"orange"]Nuclear arms. Do we really need them? Will we even ever use them? Looking at the wars raging around the globe have they even helped? [/color]


Anti-Thesis:

Need? Who “needs” nuclear weapons? Who “needs” artillery, tanks, machine guns for that matter? Human intellect, philosophical awareness and ethical values have long outgrown the need for weapons, especially so nuclear weapons.

Why? Because they will not be used ever again. What could anybody gain from using nuclear weapons? The global consequences would also affect the user himself, radioactive pollution of air and water will not stop at borders, resources in and on the ground will no longer be available for decades.

In addition to these practical issues, the user would be morally damned by the rest of the world, be isolated, disrespected and condemned – which, in today’s global inter-dependencies, will mean his economical doom.

And because everybody knows that, it does not help to prevent aggressions, genocides, wars of the conventional nature – nobody fears nuclear weapons are going to be used against him. Therefore they may as well be trashed, since this will not make a difference.

Synthesis - Or,

A Vision of Doom?

Thesis and anti-thesis are of course a very concise excerpt of the general picture , which could be, and has been, elaborated extensively.

Yes, the question of out-weighing human lifes is terribly hypocritical. Knowingly accepting collateral damage to this (or actually any) extent is in-humane, though unfortunately not in-human. Nonetheless the “excuse” is still propagated.

The “50-years-of-peace” is an egocentrical view. The war theatre “western civilization” was at peace – though the warring partners of this same civilization were battling on other fields outside their immediate geographical area.

Would there have been a war, had there not been nuclear weapons? Honestly, nobody knows – but in the sixties it came darn too close for my liking (’63 in Cuba and ’68 in Czechoslovakia).

Once a technology exists, and this is not only true for military technology, there will always be someone who will want to use it, and who will seek – and find – “very good” reasons to do so.

So – no, I do not feel safe with the knowledge that nuclear weapons exist. I would want them banned, and tight controls over the possibilities of re-building them. And I would not have any problem with policing anyone who would try.
And I would not feel less safe, when, and if, they are gone, as I am convinced that there are other means to preserve peace in our times.

Unfortunately I also see that there is not a common interest in doing so. Always and everywhere where there was a conflict, there were profiteers, power seekers, and governments that propagate the “balance of power”.

Does that answer the question whether we “need” nuclear weapons? Not really. I fail to find a logic reason for having them, even less for keeping them. Every potential reason I could think of, I could also find a hypothetical non-nuclear alternative. However on a practical political side, I fear that it’ll be hard to find anybody relevant (!) to make the first step in renouncing nuclear weapon power.

Philosophically, mankind could be beyond that, and really live humanity – in real life mankind is voracious. One of the salient characteristics of mankind is its versatility, and its antagonisms – it has its Ghandis, but also its Bushes.

I have a vision, that other “intelligent” life exists in the universe, and we will meet. The mere fact that they appear on earth would prove their technological superiority, which allowed bridging universal distances. This could be the trigger to unite mankind as inhabitants of Sol III - planet Earth.

But even then, somebody will say – you know, we have this destructive power. Let’s build a weapon, just in case – we may need it to defend ourselves – we will never use it, of course, the mere threat…

Homo homine lupus est – Man is the wolf of man.

nuclear weapons are incredibly terrifying in devastation. even more so for the consequences.

glance is right about the equalising effect & that quite a number of countries have them therefore making them wary of one another as well as the consequences of using the weapons. the scariest thing is this; how long till someone makes a mistake? how long till some holier-than-thous do something that will decimate?

Do we really need them?
maybe we did, according to the official history made by the victors of the world wars. do we need them NOW? as leverage? as last resort? tool of vengeance? hardly. it merely perpetuates paranoia & gives false sense of security just because. peace? because 'everyone' has one so nobody makes a stupid move. hesitation doesn't make good lifetime partner with peace.

Will we even ever use them?
God forbid that! death of one sends reverberation through those who are close & nearby. death of many will send reverberation throughout the whole world. my answer to this question is obvious; i hope not.

Looking at the wars raging around the globe have they even helped?
according to the history learnt in school, it is a yes. however ubereil's article make me hesitate to dictate what's in the books.

but then that was for a different time & circumstance. today we face different kinds of danger. with globalisation (just like what glance said), it's a lot easier to cripple a country through manipulation of its economy rather than war, which instead will win the said country support & therefore allies to fight the aggresor.

this beard is anti-nuke. follicle fallout ain't good, u know? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

edit: DANG! glance is a few second quicker than me. love the latin phrase. reminds me of the anime film, Jin-Roh: Wolf Brigade.

We seem to have the same oppinion: we don't like nuclear weponds. We souldn't need them. Cos just as Glace says, if tecnology exists, someone will whant to use it. And someday someone will. There is a cance someone, and according to mathematical facts, if there is a chance it will happend, it WILL happen. Someday. And since everybody have one by then, they will fire back. And they will be allied, who will have to join. It will be like the black week in WW1, but whorse cos it will not only be Europe, it will be the word, and it will not only be wardeclares, it will be destruction. Mankind wiped out. Life wiped out. All wiped out. On Earth. Maybe it will be to the better since Earths most dangerous creature will be wiped out. Human, who if this goes on someday will be our planets death. The creation of the bombs was probably the most devastateing mistake ever done. Or will be. It was painting us into a corner. Since now it exists. And if we destroy them all, someone will someday remember that they could be done, and create a new one. And then we're back again.

Übereil

PS Womble, I'll try to keep the postcount down in this thread DS

This is just a bullet thought:

But what if certain countries only have nuclear weapons to misdirect attention to the truth of what weapons they really have?

I apologize if it was off topic.

Kyra_Ny

Thank you. It is appreciated. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Kyra-welcome back <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" /> and interesting thought... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Any more contributors to this thread? I'll give it a few more hours...

I think this sums up what nuclear weapons have done to our planet perfectly. There is no way out. Kinda sad.

Anyway, Glancelot made some good points as did everyone else.

In the end though have to give this to UB for his effort in researching the US-Japan conflict and writing a rather good summary of it. It taught me a few things and gave me a good insight into what started this whole situation.

You have a link for the website you got this from UB?

Anyway, over to you.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

aww... DAGNABBIT!! i lost again! *janggut is a sore loser*

womble, Ube made it up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> the link's http://www.nosuchlink.com

Kyra, feel free to join us gits. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" /> this thread is a relief for us who have dire needs to show our real ugly selves. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

Acually, I don't know where I found it, it was in school and I think it was a search about the Hiroshimabomb (we should find what they sain in a schoolbook, in newspapers at the time and on the internet.)... It was interesting, and I think it was supposed to be written by one of the politicians who were active in the whole thing... Can't remember the site though...

Anyway, I better start think of a topic... When I find one, you'll be ther first to know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />. (On the other hand, I've gotr a physicstest on monday, so this was a little bad timeing...)

Übereil

PS Now I'm back for REAL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />! DS

Just rememberred, I think the site was in Swedish... I'll search for it while I think of a subject. What havn't we argued about?

Foud the link! If you know Swedish you'll be given some really interesting reading... http://www.skp.se/artiklar/ideologi/2.htm
If not...

And back to the subject... And the question is: what haven't we argued? The "what's the best whay to rule a country" is a pretty wide subject, and probably too big...

I think my father found an interesting topic:

What is happiness? And how do you become happy? What are the main criterion for happiness? Is it owning a lot of money, having a lot of friends, being healthy, haveing a flourishing lovelife etc?

Let's get it on...

Übereil

Aristotle's "good life" boiled down into a simple formula:

Know your "signature strengths" and "use these strengths every day in the main realms of your life to bring abundant gratification and authentic happiness."

The (obvious!) fact that the more time we spend doing what we are good at, the more pleasure we experience in our lives. The trick, of course, is to follow Socrates' wisdom to truly "know ourselves" and then properly apply that knowledge to our daily lives.

Discover your "signature strengths" and create a life and work environment that allows you to utilize these skills more often.

As we gain more and more self-awareness, it becomes that much easier to create a life that allows us to express ourselves most fully--and experience the most happiness.

Know the differences between jobs vs. careers vs. callings. There are differences between knowing and utilizing your strengths to create a life in which you are pursuing your calling rather than just performing a job that pays your bills or a career that provides the quickly fleeting satisfaction of job advancement. “Good stuff.”

Many of us have sensed intuitively: the fact that "Our economy is rapidly changing from a money economy to a satisfaction economy." Corporations that promote the attainment of satisfaction for their employees (achieved by enabling them to do what they do best) will overtake corporations that rely on monetary reward.

What are your strengths? How are you building your life around them?


Kyra_Ny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />