Round 7: Adolph Hitler vrs The atom bomb

[a500lbgorilla]

One decided that killing all ze Juden was a top notch idea for the benefit of the Aryan race. The other thinks that splitting heavily enriched uranium is just about the best way to spend an afternoon or two in august, 1945.

One is man at his most evil, the other is a weapon too powerful to be wielded by even the best of men. Let's vote it out.

The atom bomb vote encompasses all fission and fusion bombs.

[BennyLaRue]

Should be Round Nein, imo.

[Halv]

Atom bombs don't kill people, people kill people!

[wufwugy]

Adolph

[Renton]

i like the cool way in which the atom bomb evens the match between two countries of varying powers. Like, for example we could just annihilate nkorea, pakistan, iran, any of these piss ant countries if it weren't for the assurance of getting completely fucked by a series of nukes.

[Parasurama]

do those countries have the capability to deliver a payload to the continental us?

[Renton]

probably not actually

[a500lbgorilla]

I think considering that the atom bomb has been used to level Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 200k wounded or killed, it's an interesting choice.

The bomb itself is just technology. The eventual end of our search for ultimate knowledge. It alone cant be worse, but because it allows for the evil man with his finger on the button to kill at an unparalleled and unstoppable level, my vote is for the bomb.

[Parasurama]

The atom bomb also saved countless japanese and american lives, and the threat has prevented other global wars.

[TwoKicker]

I voted for Hitler.

I think that evil is required for the use and creation of the bomb but not for it's mere existance.

[a500lbgorilla]

The atom bomb also saved countless japanese and american lives, and the threat has prevented other global wars.

It sounds like trading off thunder storms that happen frequently, for 1 hurricane that rarely happens. Totally just blazed. GO STEELERS!

Oh maybe i should explain. I'm thinking that a war with hbombs will destroy everything. That even 1 man with a handful of hbombs could do absolute damage. Yes, its not evil in anyway. But I dont believe in evil. I dont even think hitler was evil. But a tool which can level just about everything is just far too effective for us people to use.

[Stacks]

But a tool which can level just about everything is just far too effective for us people to use.

Your such a jew.

[a500lbgorilla]

omg
stacks
yer horribal
so horribal

[Jack Sawyer]

Atomic bomb, EZ game

Hitler killed Jews, no doubt, but he also led the most effective anti tobacco campaign in history. The atomic bomb has no secondary functions: it only kills indiscriminately upon launch, and continues to affect lives centuries after it has been deployed.

[wufwugy]

I take contention with the idea that the bomb has helped ward off war. It may be true, but I'm skeptical

Since the bomb, war has been proxy and waged in undeveloped regions, and there's been a lot of it. I believe that globalization, modernization, information travel, and military tech is what has prevented direct wars between major powers. The Cold War was kind of a different issue. According to McNamara (Secretary of Defense under Kennedy), the public has no clue exactly how close to hot war we were on several occasions. Also, it wasn't even a real cold war due to proxy fighting.

Anyways, the bomb is not currently keeping any developed nations from attacking other developed nations. It's possible that it's keeping nations like Pakistan and India from upping their conflict to full scale, or from Israel being attacked, but that's only a possibility. Nukes are not as serious business as everybody thinks. In fact, conventional explosives and fuels are substantially more threatening WRT terrorism than nukes. Just look at 9/11, all conventional and low tech. Terrorists would be fucking retarded if they tried to get their hands on nukes. Amassing gasoline and dynamite is substantially more effective

And the reason North Korea and Pakistan have not been blown away has nothing to do with nukes. NK's most recent test was substantially weaker than the Nagasaki bomb, they have loltastic delivery systems, and the real threat from NK is almost soley from retaliation mortar fire from the border onto SK. Also NK has a bunch of bio and chem weapons that could possibly be very threatening, but we don't actually have much intel on them.

Pakistan also has terrible delivery systems, and any 'lost' bombs couldn't travel that far. US has virtually zero threat from NK or Pak nukes. Even if we shock and awed them the only thing they would be able to nuke is themselves. In fact, I think it may be that the only nuclear threat to US is still and always Russia. They're the ones with the delivery systems. I honestly don't know which other European nations have the bomb with elaborate delivery tech. But even then there is virtually zero threat from Russia or EU. That last thing any modern country wants is any modern nations going head to head

People tend to not realize exactly how fucking advanced US military is. While US is not the only nation that develops the tech, we're the only nation that pays for it on large scales. The entire globe could go balls to the walls (non-nuke) invasion of the US and they would get blown to smitherines simply because US has spent waaaaaaaaaaaaay more time and money into setting up military systems and knowing how to use them. Missiles are expensive as fuck, require a ton of testing, and other nations would be throwing their money down the toilet by trying to par up with US. Not to mention that US spends more than the entire world combined on military