DEBATE: Thesis - No act taken to prevent a nuclear war is immoral.

[benburch]

I'm not taking sides here, I am posting this to stimulate debate;

Thesis; No action taken to prevent a nuclear war from occurring could ever be immoral or unethical.

In your response, say SUPPORT, OPPOSE, or OTHER in your title, and then justify your position.

Thanks!

[sproutster]

1. Support

It is immoral to destroy a part of earth over political differences. It is reprehensible and not only destroys what is there now, but also destroys generations after. I cannot even wrap my head around anyone choosing a different answer.

[Crayson]

2. Other

I like cheese.
^_^

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. What's to debate?

Especially under the present circumstances, to not oppose this would be insane.

[benburch]

4. Some actions that might ordinarily be immoral or unethical...

...would be covered by the affirmative of the thesis.

[sproutster]

6. tick tick tick...

j/k

[wuushew]

5. why just nuclear war?

It seems like the sacrifice of one would be well worth it to have saved countless thousands in Iraq.

In terms of casualties, conventional conflicts may be on par with scenarios short of full out nuclear annihilation.


:nuke:

[patrice]

14. War is Social Abortion.

Real Pro-Life would object the loss of a single life to "___________________" whatever.

[benburch]

18. Just nuclear war because that is the current issue. nt

[cynatnite]

7. Would it be immoral to overthrow the US govt to prevent nuclear war?

:popcorn:

[patrice]

9. That wouldn't change the cause.

[boobooday]

10. I think it would be patriotic

:patriot:

[mike_c]

17. if you accept the premise that nuclear war is not in the interests...

...of the governed (and it's certainly not in the interest of their victims) then yes, I think regime change in the U.S. is a completely appropriate response.

[patrice]

8. Support.

Where there is life, there is hope to change whatever the factors are that bring people to the point of nuclear war.

Nuclear War, even a "small" one, will not accomplish what anyone assumes it will.

People who support nuclear war are sick.

[bee]

11. Support.

Anything done to prevent nuclear war, IMO, is done in self defense.

[TahitiNut]

12. Oppose.

It's the ol' "ends justify the means" argument ... which I reject. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Bushoilini Regime employed this ethically bankrupt 'reasoning' in invading Iraq.

[wuushew]

16. As a lame duck there is no political action that can stop Bush

even an impeachment process and later war crime prosecution would happen after the fact of a nuclear strike.

My protestations and free speech cannot physically stop him from pushing the red button. Perhaps we need to foster doubt and independent thought in the military chain of command so that uniformed men and women are not complicit in his madness.

[Neil Lisst]

13. OTHER

Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?

No one knows what would cause a nuclear war, so taking actions to stop said war would be strictly speculative, and as such, merely a projection of one's own beliefs.

That makes me OTHER.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. OPPOSE

ALMOST no act - mass murder would still be immoral. A pyrrhic victory along the lines of 'we burned the village in order to save it' or something similar: a mass murder to stop a nuclear war would be just as bad as a nuclear war.

[MrPrax]

19. So...

You would allow mass murder then? Isn't the question asking, 'would you stop a mass murder?', then? And isn't there a qualitative difference between nukes and conventional weapons?

The fallout from nukes tends to float radiation around the planet, affecting far more than the 'intended' victims of the mass murderer, no?

Wasn't this the case with Cernobyl?

If Iran has operational nuclear power plants, then the fallout to the surrounding countries makes those people 'dead' as well, no?

Besides the fact that a 'mass murder to stop a nuclear war' would involve you, and simply allowing nuclear war would involve them, you don't see a moral difference?

[benburch]

20. Chernobyl did indeed go around the planet.

Shortly after Chernobyl I was working for a nuclear power utility here in the USA.

Some workers at one of their stations came back from a hunting trip in Canada. They had killed and consumed part of several moose. Upon returning to work they set off the radiation detectors because they were now sufficiently radioactive to be considered contaminated.

[MrPrax]

22. That's a good observation...

The fallout from Cernobyl caused a huge health and financial problems from Poland to the rest of the EU and even up in the Scandanavian countries. They put down a hell of a lot of cattle.

If Iran has nukes online as power plants, then I can see it's neigbors, especially the Russians, drawing a line in the sand over this--even the oil facilities in Iran might be contaminated for years...what occupying army, including the US, would want to be stationed there very long...

Even now in the Ukraine, the area around Cernobyl is off-limits

It's a dumb bad idea period

[benburch]

24. Don't assume Bush would care what happened to American troops.

That much at least is crystal clear!

[MrPrax]

26. On that point...

I concur with President Bush...I don't care what happens to them either

:nopity: on the radiation sickness fallback problem...sorry

[EstimatedProphet]

25. How on Earth did you come up with that?

That's not what I am saying at all. What the original post clearly said is that NOTHING is as immoral as nuclear war. So, a nuclear war to stop a nuclear war-what about that? What about going into a country and killing everyone there to stop a nuclear war? These things are more moral to you?

[seabeyond]

21. oppose. a simple. using nuclear to rationalize preventing nuclear

war doesnt seem to me to be an act taken to prevent nuclear war as being immoral. i personally feel it is very immoral, not to mention irresponsible as it opens the door for validation of all country to use nuclear weapon to revent nuclear war, just as preemptive strike has opened door for any country to preemptive strike on u.s.

[benburch]

23. And if you knew your OWN country were about to start a nuclear war? nt