Through this entire thread you have ignored people explaining to you what a nuke actually is. A nuke is not just a run of the mill weapon, this is true. But a nuke is not some rarified item that was only developed once (by Oppenheimer, et al). Almost every country in the world is capable of creating nuclear weapons on their own. And has been pointed out in this thread, Nazi Germany had a large nuclear weapons program that would have surely completed a bomb in due time.
Prentending otherwise is to be blind to history. A label the proponents of the 2nd Amendment often place on “anti-gun activists.”
But we didn’t use the nuclear bomb to defeat the Germans. We (and Russia) were able to defeat them without resorting to that. I mean, shit, they also did experiments on human beings to get more scientific data - that could have given them a big advantage. Should we have risen to the occasion for that as well?
Right–you defend yourself with a nuclear bomb merely by possessing it, which acts as a deterrent to others attacking you in the first place. Ergo, nobody gets nuked. Only two nuclear bombs have every been deployed in the 6+ decades of the nuclear era. Guns are a shit deterrent, and as such are used to hundreds of thousands of people every year. So which is worse, really?
You still have failed to address the point that several people have made: given the fact that Germany had a nuclear weapons program, and the Allies had no way of knowing whether it would succeed (after all, the Germans made several technological advances over the Allies during WWII, including viable jet engines), what would you have had the Allies do? Sit back and hope Germany didn’t get the Bomb? That’s quite a gamble there, podner. It’s easy to say (with hindsight) it’s a gamble we would have won, but you know, hindsight being 20/20 and all.
YOU know that NOW. But as I said, the Germans made many technological advances over the Allies during WWII. If you have evidence that the Allies knew for sure* at the time *that the Germans could not possibly have developed a nuclear weapon in time to save the Third Reich, then by all means present this evidence. Otherwise, the Allies were perfectly justified in developing the bomb as a defensive/deterrent weapon against the Germans.
This touches on the question of whether people are justified in continuing to make nukes. Obviously many people feel that mutually assured destruction served as a valuable deterrent during the Cold War and prevented the USA and USSR from having an actual war; and so they feel the nuclear buildup was justified on those grounds. But that’s a separate question from the original question of whether the inventors of the atomic bomb, in the context of WWII where Axis powers were also trying to invent the bomb, were justified in turning their talents to this project.
Nuclear weapons are destructive, yes, no one’s arguing that. But the title of this thread is just nonsense. The scientists involved in the Manhattan project didn’t get a giddy thrill out of murdering innocent people. They were merely making a tool out of (what they thought at the time was) necessity. Hitler, on the other hand, systematically targeted specific civilians for no other reason than spite. Einstein was an outspoken pacifist in his later years, and repeatedly called for global nuclear disarmament. Can you imagine Hitler surviving WWII and making speeches about how we should be more accepting of other cultures?
Actually I’d have to disagree with that. I don’t think Hitler got a “thrill” out of what he was doing nor was it out of spite. I think Hitler thought that he was being very logical and reasonable and that the Jews were simply a cancer on German society and he saw himself as the surgeon cutting out the cancer. He may have had an insane motivation but he approached it in a very rational and focused way.
I’ve always been struck by Jonathan Bennett’s article “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn,” where he quotes Himmler at some length talking about how difficult it is to do one’s moral duty and kill Jews while at the same time remaining a decent human and not becoming coarse. It’s jaw-dropping.
Bennett quotes Himmler’s physician Kersten, who wrote:
I don’t think they enjoyed it. They just had a very fucked-up idea of what their moral obligation was.
Everybody in Western and a large chunk of people in Central Europe have the scientists, and engineers, of the Manhattan Project to thank for their freedom. The greatest decision the American, British and French governments ever made was to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, the only real counteract to an evil and evangelical ideology, Communism, that needed stamping out (by force, if necessary).
I find it highly unlikely that Finland, Austria and the rest of Germany, amongst others, would now not be recovering ex-Soviet vassal states without the presence of two European nuclear powers, in addition to an American military presence on the continent.
Possible peaceful use of a nuclear weapon: intercepting and destroying a meteor before it can hit Earth.
I thought sure someone would post that…maybe I missed it.
ETA: I thought in “Mars Rising” part of their plan was to use a nuclear reactor as a power source.
Of course we haven’t had so much luck figuring out what to do with nuclear waste and some other issues, but nuclear power is another potential benefit of the pure science.
I thought along similar lines a while back, under the impression that pressing that button would indeed annihilate whole countries. I was swiftly corrected on the boards when I posted that thought and changed my mind.
Likewise, the Wright brothers are inhuman fiends. Their invention of the airplane* has lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people via aerial bombardment. Be proud, Ohio.
I think you mean SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile) as opposed to SRBM (short-ranged ballistic missile), since modern subs no longer carry the latter (and haven’t for decades).
Also, what “space-based weapons” are you referring to?
You seem to be missing the point. They have only been used twice for the purpose being discussed, ie killing people. Another one in irresponsible hands, and nukes would soon overtake your petty 2008 figures.
Isn’t that the point though, amongst all the other means by which people can be deliberately killed by another human being, in the past century they’ve been used amongst the least times and have taken relatively few lives in comparison.
Do you realise that the alternative to having these weapons would in all likelihood have been bloodier? As threemae already put it, without the restraint that these weapons put upon the superpowers in the aftermath of world war two there might have been a bigger, bloodier war. You say that a handgun can be used to defend yourself but the same can also be argued for nuclear weapons in the sense that they deter others from attacking you.