Poll: Nuclear Deterrents

[Captain Pancake]

Today in my philosophy class we were discussing the necessity of war, and different views (such as the impractical Kantian ethic, the utilitarian view and Aquinas' middle ground) and we got on to the topic of Nuclear weapons. I was the first to voice my opinion, saying that though a great threat, they are also a great deterrent to war, as since the end of world war two there has not been a war of a similar scale between two first world nations, and any wars since then have always been between or against under-developed nations without access to nuclear weapons. However, I was in the minority, as in a class of 10 I was the only person who believed it necessary to keep these weapons, and everybody else thought it immoral. Am I being too right wing? Or are they being too idealistic? Express your own opinions below.

Also, a poll!

 

[Crazy_Dude]

In war I dont see the possible need to blow up an area that large. America dropped it on two Japenese cities killing thousands and thousands of INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Also the fall out of radiation is also horryfing any form of plantgrowth will be near impossible in the upcoming 10-30 years. And even if it works it will all be horribly disformed.

 

[Scolar Visari]

Unfortunately necessary. Like you've said, it's ensured that the superpowers tread carefully around each other.