Lost

Atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, not Nuclear weapons. The two are very different (Correct me if I'm wrong haha).

There is a huge reason as to why Japan didn't stop fighting a war they were unlucky not to win. Japanese Generals were told that the American Army, if they were to ever be captured or to ever enter the homeland, world rape and pillage Japanese civlians and massacre Japanese soldiers who did surrender; this propanda would mean that the Japanese would never surrender, why surrender when theres no possiblity for survival?

__________________

Suffy

They are the same, so *corrected*.

The Atom Bomb is a type of nuclear weapon.

__________________

Assassin™

Sheesh, I wish people would at least attempt to make themselves aware of basic facts before stumbling into a discussion in which they plan to use said facts to back up their arguments.

This whole diatribe you went on proclaiming how nuclear weapons aren't evil was presumably instigated by this thread's title, because no one here was making points opposed to yours. If so, then sorry for the confusion, because I definitely wasn't suggesting that metal and plastic and the other raw materials that go into a nuclear weapon are evil. That's absurd. Most would agree, however, that the destruction these weapons cause is a bad thing, and some have argued that there are no need for such powerful weapons in the first place. The instrument itself, being an inanimate object, obviously isn't evil, but it can clearly be argued that the act of creating, stockpiling, and specifically using such an instrument can be evil. This was never meant to be an epistemological point about the nature of war.

There were a few other peculiarities in your post that I found interesting:

How is that not a comparison? Showing that two entities have something in common is basically the definition of a comparison. It's weird how you can claim to not be comparing two things, then later in the same sentence proceed to do just that. Were you scared of offending someone or something? Because what you said makes no sense.

Also:

Is this literally what you believe, or were you just emphasizing a point? I do believe people created the concept of evil, but I don't think it was in response to a tactic the government used in war. I think it's foundation is in religion, and in the demonization of certain actions that were seen as taboo or deviating from the norm. Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people would surely be seen as taboo, would it not? I don't think it's fair to try to equate a negative view of the effects of nuclear weapons to a simple psychological regress, used when people "cannot accept" the brutality of war.

Lost

I didn't post in this thread to argue against any of the points made by any of the past posters, so before you assume I did, I would check your facts before deciding to belittle my first post, I was simply trying to add to a struggling thread by refering to the thread title when writing my post. (I didn't know it was a crime to create other discussion that was somewhat relevent to the thread history?).

I agree, there is definatly no need for Nuclear weapons; but how can you deny the power that Nuclear weapons give a country? The most feared man-made weapon ever assembled at your disposal!? The thought of the idea brings fear into the heart of many. Whether or not Nuclear Weapons are evil is a matter of perspective... and obviosuly, a matter of state of mind.

I won't lie, of course I was scared (As you so blatently put it) of offending someone; how could you not be? To make a comparison of Nagasaki/Hiroshima/Hitler is a very big comparison to make, and if I did offend anybody, I apologise.

I agree, the argument I tried to propose was flawed and the government can not possibly be the sole reason Evil was created. However, I stand by evil being nothing but an excuse for those unwillingly able to accept responsiblity for brutal and heinous events that create fear and sadness in a society.

__________________