Skip to main content

Week 12 [20.01.20-26.01.20] Standing in the middle of a city while it is being nuked

Currently there are nine countries in the world that have a total of minimum 13 910 standard issue thermonuclear warheads, of which at least 3 600 are deployed, which means that only a press of a button and approximately 30 minutes of flight (that much it takes for a warhead to reach any part of the planet from any point, tops) separates You or Your home town from being wiped out from existence. See a video below for a very cool informative and illustrative representation of what it must feel to stand right in the ground zero (Spoiler: this is practically the best possible location to be) when nuke detonates.


Seeing a video, what is Your opinion about:

1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?

Comments

Maciej P s16488 said…
I think that we can go step by step from nuclear bombs through every kind of weapon downhill to knives and sticks asking if their existance is justified. The first piece of a weapon of its kind never is but the next pieces are made as a "protection". You make new kind of weapon to gain advantage over others while others will create that kind of weapon to regain balance. It seems like nothing changed but yet both sides are weaponized. Nevertheless I think that nuclear weapons are scary and devastating but we think about them as some kind of doomsday device while we don't think much about the facts.
First of all I'd like to point out that in my opinion nuclear weapons should've never been used. There are several things concerning that kind of weapon that we don't think about when we talk about them. It isn't easy to detonate city - if you try to bomb it, then you have to somehow transport that bomb. To give an example - Nagasaki wasn't supposed to be bombed but Kokura. It didn't happen because weather was bad and pilot couldn't see Kokura so they changed their target to Nagasaki. Obviously weather wouldn't be problem at current times, but I am trying to give a perspective here. Now, it is more common to create warheads but they are easy to shoot down. If country is prepared, it isn't that easy to get nuked. I've heard that all nuclear bombs could blown earth out of space. It is true but (if I am not wrong) when bomb explodes it often vaporizes most of the explosives. In Japain's case "It’s estimated that only about 2% to 4% of the uranium in the bombs were converted into energy by the chain reaction.". Another thing is that noone needs country destroyed by nukes. If you want to conquer country, you don't wipe it off the earth. Not to mention that, these days, the first country that will try nuke other will get nuked by every other country.

I wouldn't really care much about it. It is more about creating fear rather than actully doing it. My opinion on that is somehow relevant to previously stated insight on this case.

It is very hard question because on the one hand, we as a society have huge impact on everything (positive as well as negative) but on the other hand I feel like it is very hard to change anything - like e.g. environment. Everyone knows we are slowly destroying everything around us but we still do it. In case of nukes, everyone knows they are "bad", so we don't really need to declare that, but we should make authorities be aware that public opinion dislikes nukes.
Kyrylo said…
Oh, believe me, authorities are well aware that the public dislikes nukes :) As for "It is easy to shoot them" -- it takes 30 minutes for the nuke to reach other side of the planet. Which means, that it is moving pretty fast. Sure, with modern technologies you can detect it and even aim and shoot ground-air class ballistics. But. You will spot in only on the your country satellite coverage. In case of USA they will know that somewhere the nuke has been launched four minutes after launch. Another four minutes -- to determine, where it is going. And you will have as much as 20 minutes to evacuate the population of the whole city, which is, well, impossible. Why would you want to evacuate the city? Well, because shooting a nuke in the air only makes it detonate in the air. Only upside of it is less structural damage, but the radioactive fallout will spread just as much as in the ground zero. Most of the people will die of cancer within a week anyway.

Lastly, out of 193 countries in the world, only somewhat 20 of them have the technology to combat in the nuclear warfare. Many will just have no option other than watch a warhead obliterating them. At most they will be able to hide authorities in the underground bunkers.
Maciej P s16488 said…
I don't deny it is moving fast. I wanted to point out that this kind of nukes can't be the heave ones and because of that they are more prone to being shot down.
I think they wouldn't shoot it down above important areas - in case of Warsaw I guess bye bye Piaseczno. Obviously I am kidding about Piaseczno, but I am sure they would make nuke detonate above fields or something. Still it would be devastating but in our history we were heavily destroyed without nukes, so I think it is more about war itself rather than weapons.
I generaly agree with you, but I'd like to point out that out of 193 countries there are many countries that from our point of view are meaningless. It is 20 countries out of 193 but still these are 20 countries that are prepared for this kind of war. Statistically, it is like 3 countries per continent - it doesn't have to be USA sending rockets to save us from nuke. It could be France, Germany or UK (not sure if it is actually them with technology but I'd take a guess)
1. I cannot justify guns so it's undeniable to me that a weapon of mass destruction should have never been made. The problem is that it already exists so we cannot just erase it. Even if countries will sign some kind of a treaty we cannot be sure they will keep the promise. And how did we got to this point? War was always a race, at some point, it becomes a technological race. When knights on horses meet tanks it's clear who is going to win the battle. The technology escalated to this point, from basic calculative point of view, nuclear missiles are the most efficient weapons, but from an ethical perspective, the less moral one.

2. I tend to be a little paranoid, sometimes I can't sleep because I read an article about meteorites and I'm afraid that one will fall into my room -.-' that's why if I knew there is a slight possibility of getting nuked I would seriously consider moving. But on the other hand, I don't think that it is a real threat, at least not in Europe. People would be too scared for one bomb to start a chain reaction. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there once was another order to fire nuclear missiles. In 1983, 6 missiles were detected approaching the Soviet Union, fired from the U.S. Stanislav Petrov, commanding officer at the nuclear centre, decided to ignore the order, speculating it is a false alarm, which it was. Due to his decision, we probably avoided WW3. I hope that the majority of people in a chain of command would think twice of such a move.

3. No, as I said before we cannot get rid of all of them. There will always be at least one country that will hide it and then get an upper hand. But I hope we can at least regulate it. Set a limit or make insane laws to make those weapons almost impossible to use.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
Weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons and fusion weapons are one of the worse things people have discovered. I believe they should never have been created. I need to hate myself, other people and the world to use it. It was to be a necessity, and now it has become an object of terror and fear.
We invented weapons of mass destruction because we were still striving to achieve a better position during wars.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
Well, I would probably feel scared. On the other hand, can we escape from crazy people and shirts in this world? Only such people can take my city as a target. My city may be on this list today, not tomorrow. We do not know how true and current this list is.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?
I think it would be hard. At present, Poland does not scare us with such things, so protests in Poland would not be justified. People who influence the presence of atomic bombs run a very aggressive, undemocratic policy.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?

I understand how it happened that nuclear weapons exist. During WW2 every side of conflict wanted to have a bigger and more powerful weapon than the others so USA decided to go crazy on subject and create an ultimate weapon. Nobody shouldn’t even exist on the first place – but already happened.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?

Well, I think that there is not much to do when your are on a target list. At least one citizen can’t do anything. I guess that if I live in Warsaw that means my city is already on a nuclear target list. If there were any signs of an incoming nuclear crisis I would probably have to make a decision to leave Warsaw and move to any smaller city. My hometown would be my first choice for sure.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?

That depends. We might have our protests and antinuclear events but let’s be frank – global leaders might say that they agree and they are going to get rid of those weapons but what’s the difference if we will never know if that promise is true.
Bartosz Waś said…
1. I think the creation of these wepons can't be justifed. Now having them by some countries that can afford them is pretty understandable. Right after first country declared to have such wepon other started to manufacture their own to keep balance and dont give their apponents advantage. These days everyone would have to destroy their arsenal at once to get rid of it.

2. In my opinion there is not much to do in such situation.

3. I think only big protests could change something but its still unikley to make it happen. Too many countries have nuclear wepons and it would be extremely hard to get rid of these all at once. Using nuclear wepons is considered immoral but still not many world leaders care.
Roman Dubovyi said…
1. Well nuclear technology is kind of obvious to not to be discovered. Sooner or later we would weaponize it. As you can see after this demonstration on Hiroshima and Nagasaki no other huge war occurred. That’s is a good effect of having nuclear weaponry. On the other hand we of course have crazy leaders like Kim Jon-Un or Putin who just openly threat other countries with nuclear weapons. But that’s the problem of underdeveloped nations and their citizens.

2. What can I do? What did you do, I am interested?

3. Yes, I think when all the world comes to it’s senses and there is democracy in all nations possessing nuclear weaponry - then we can try. But today it’s not just impossible, it’s unreasonable.
Yurii Gevtsi said…
This is a very serious topic, about which many scientific, psychological and philosophical works have been written. On the one hand, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in all countries is a threat to all of humanity, but at the same time it is also a defense against this threat. It would seem that no country would want to use it against another, since in response it can do the same, and both countries can disappear from the face of the earth. Therefore, logically, the presence of these weapons in all countries ensures that no one will use them and therefore it would be logical if everyone abandons them and the effect is the same, but in reality everything is completely different.

Of course, everything is rethought when there is a conflict in your country, especially with such an adversary as Russia. A couple of years ago, when the situation was very tense, one wrong or reckless decision could lead to war, although I love my country, but I understand that we wouldn't have any chance without strong outside support. And who knows maybe nothing of this would have happened if we had nuclear weapons, maybe Russia would not have risked, knowing about the availability of nuclear weapons in our country, who knows ...

I think that this is impossible, at least until the conflicts in countries such as Iran or North Korea are resolved. As well as less serious conflicts in other countries.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?

I think that only the most influential leaders can decide about such weapons. These kinds of weapon were produced because that is the ultimate argument for a country to convince other to its right.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?

I have nothing to do about it if my home was in a strategic object for bombing. I would hope that there is no man which is decision-making that want to start a WW3. If there was real threat I would flee the city and go somewhere where it would be safe.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?

I don’t think that regular citizens have an impact on such decisions. We can’t forget that every leader wants to be the most powerful and every country wants to be able to fight with others when there is necessity. So I don’t think the leaders are willing to resign from the nuclear arsenal.
Kuba Berliński said…

1. To me nuclear weapon is the reason we live in a "peaceful" world. Right now no super-power can afford having a open war, as nukes would simply destory the whole world, which is no ones intention.

2. I don't think it really matters. As I mentioned above no one wants to destroy the entire world and therefore, whether the city is on the list or not it is safe.

3. I don't think so. No matter what we do coutries such as Russia or USA will not get rid of nukes from their arsenal. I also think that if it somehow happened there would be another war on Europe's territory.
I think that nuclear weapons were invented as an ultimate convincing argument. As history showed there is no match for them in response. As I see it either i manage to get somewhere safe or i don't. Either way is a quick death. I think regular citizens wat to think their opinion matter. At the end of the day the decions are made way above regular citizens opinion.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?

I think it started as interesting research, which evolved into such a big problem, which we have now, From one side existence of such massive weapons cannot be justified, but they are working as a prevention things, no one wants to start a war against countries, which have nuclear power.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?

I would feel a little bit stressed out and look very closely for world politics. Moreover, I would try to change the place, where I and my relatives live.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?

First of all, I am not sure if there are still any manufacturing process for nukes. Also, I think regular citizens won't have any impact on decisions about nukes. I cannot believe, that the USA or Russia will decide to get rid of them such easily.
dominik.samsel said…
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
In my opinion nuclear weapon should be eliminated from existence. As the author of the movie said, it only needs one person who's in charge and crazy enough to do it to start a warhead war. Telling people that we them only just to threat not use it's definitely not a solution

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
I think that I would prey and hope it wouldn't happen. There's not much to do in that case. It's between staying there and taking the risk or move somewhere else.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?

I really hope it's still possible, but I'm not sure that people in charge wants to give their leverage until everybody does.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
It isn't necessary. In my opinion, the possession of such weapons in any country should be strictly prohibited. It carries too many consequences.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
It depends on the context of the situation. If there was a significant threat to bombing, I would move to a place where such a threat would not exist. However, until there is no such threat I won't do anything about it.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?
Of course, yes, by joining in strength we can do everything :)
I think that nuclear weapons are not necessity at all but there is a quite good explanation to why they exist. What I mean is, let’s say that there is world-wide agreement that every country gets rid of all their nuclear bombs. Of course, every country will get rid of most of them in public to show that they honor the agreement, but I am like 100% sure that every country will still store some of them in a hidden place just in case something bad will happen. Of course, no one want to use them, but they are something like some twisted safety insurance because no one else want to be blown away from the face of Earth. If I would find out that my home city is a target to nuclear bombing, I would take me and my family and move as far away from there as possible. I don’t think that at this moment there is anything else I can do about it. As I said earlier, I think that nukes are totally not needed and they are just symbol of fear and destruction. But I think that at this moment it is impossible to get rid of them for good.
Unknown said…
In my opinion existance of nuclear weapons is the main reason preventing global superpowers from going to war with each other. In 20th century we had two world wars in span of less than 30 years. Those were the scariest conflicts of human history. At the end of II world war nuclear bombs were invented. In few years everyone realised that another world war would end up in complete annihilation of our civilization. In such war there are no winners, only losers. That is why nobody wants to end up in such conflict. There is nothing to gain from it. Obviously the main issue is someone mentally insane coming into possesion of such nuclear arsenal. Then it could end extremely bad for the whole world. However, I think that if it weren't for nuclear weapons we would have had another World War in 1960s or 1970s. Which would have been even worse and had bigger death toll than both previous World Wars combined together.
1. I don't think anyone should have such power to control over as devastating weapons as nuclear ones.

2. My first reaction would be to run as fast as possible from there and contact my closest family and friends about potential danger.

3. I don't think it is possible at this point simply because of the fact that goverment tend to hide information from public and tend not to listen to anyone about any topic.

1. I think they are not a ncessity. They should be prohibited, because the repososability of using it is huge. In my opinion if one crazy person, starts a nuclear weapon against another country it could be an end of the world which we know.

2. I would feel unsecure for sure. Probably I would live normally, because what else I can do, I would not move to another city or I have no power to change it.

3. I think we can not do antyhing about this. In my opinion it is a problem of our common future, but as I wrote, we do not have much "moves" to change it.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
I think that existance of nuclear weapons i justified. The new technologies often are created for the army and it can speed things up to apply it to civilian useage like in nuclear powerplants. The necessity of it is much more complex. I think that nuclear weapons should be banned because they threaten the existence of humanity.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
What could i do. I would feel bad about it and in case of danger of beeing whiped out from the planet probably would try to be as close to centrum of an impact as possible.

3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?
Some steps are made to try to do this that way. To ban the nuclear weapons but i guess at this point its not possible to get rid of all of the nuclear weapons on earth. They are still very powerfull weapons and having them cause fear.
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
They are not necessary, but they are inevitable. They are not evil and can be useful all depend who have access to them and how they are used for example theoretically meteorite that can destroy Europe without nuclear weapon we can’t do anything but with them we at last have some chance but there is also in another problem with them we can also destroy whole life on earth and destroy ourselves.
2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
I wouldn't care it’s not like I can do something about this if the war with the use of nuclear weapons really breaks out, then probably everyone will use it and there will not be a safe place on earth. I don’t plan to change anything in life for the reason what if…
3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?
We can do nothing we can only scream and cry and nothing will change. There is already ban on biological and chemical weapons but nothing changed countries still use them and research them in secret from time to time there is leaked news that one or another village was destroyed using banned weapons and then these powerful countries only talk how this is immoral and how sorry they are and then do nothing.
Kyrylo said…
The main problem is that you cannot do much on an international level. There is no such thing as "Law" when it comes to the country-to-country relationships. The only thing one country can do is to express its position in regards on certain topic. And if you get nuked -- only thing that is leaft is to nuke back.
Kyrylo said…
Agreed. But then again, would not be running non aggressive policies be considered and mistaken as a kind of weakness?
Kyrylo said…
The Manhattan Project was a result of scared to death people acting compulsively and desperately wanting to win WW2. They succeeded. And little did they know about the thing they were sending in motion.
Kyrylo said…
World leaders care about their money, influence, and, up to some degree, countries. Not the people in those countries. On the big scale we are but an expandable resource, a fuel if you like. On the same shelve as oil, petrol, coal, territory, GDP, Nuclear warheads...
Kyrylo said…
2. What can I do? What did you do, I am interested?

I mowed to Warsaw :) However, it is on another list for bombing, of this time, another leader.

But today it’s not just impossible, it’s unreasonable. -- Pretty much sums up the long lasting debate about getting rid of nukes. Everyone agrees to that but nobody wants to be first.
Cem Ates said…
1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
No, weapons are not necessary in general at all, at the end we all going to die. How did we even come up to something? Easy question.. money. power. not to realise what the life is all about. PS. no, it's not about money. look at the KFC, he is the making the most money while he is dead. so for what, and the nucs and the weapons are the same... for what tho??

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
Screw it, make love not war.
3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?
nope. money talks not us.
Kyrylo said…
Ukraine in fact had nuclear weapons at a day. While being part of the Soviet Union, it served as a sort of storage for them. After it shattered, all nukes were transported to Russia.

If Ukraine still had them, using them against Russia would not be a wise decision. Everybody sees that in the war this country does not stand a chance. And provoking other world leaders with warmongery is of most stupid moves possible. This will render Ukraine stripped out of all possible and theoretical allies. And being nuked back.
Kyrylo said…
Nuclear arsenal is just as mere resource and a deal maker as any other. People being a second one.
Kyrylo said…
Why do You think so? Is Europe somehow appears as another point of interest or will fit as a playground yet again?
Kyrylo said…
Either way is a quick death. -- Watch the video :) A small percentage of people will die in the fireball. Other 99% will suffer from leukemia, radiation poisoning and other horrible things, Their death will be slow and miserable.
Kyrylo said…
First of all, I am not sure if there are still any manufacturing process for nukes. -- There are. They are continuously being developed and new solutions are researched. It's just that their maintenance is not cheap. Abandoning a nuke is effectively detonating it on the territory of your own country. But there are solutions that will allow to manufacture new ones at a rapid pace.
Kyrylo said…
No, weapons are not necessary in general at all -- How an utopian point of view. If only this would be so simple. Yes, we are all going to die, but until then we are given time on this planet. To use it wisely.
Kyrylo said…
They are not necessary, but they are inevitable. They are not evil and can be useful all depend who have access to them and how they are used for example theoretically meteorite that can destroy Europe without nuclear weapon we can’t do anything but with them we at last have some chance but there is also in another problem with them we can also destroy whole life on earth and destroy ourselves. -- Actually, there has been proven that nature will sustain itself and redevelop. The only thing that will remind that some time ago here lived humans -- is the thin layer of radioactive fallout under the ashes, on top of which the nature will blossom.
Mykola Suprun said…
1) Yes, of course. I think it is well established that nuclear weapons prevented the third world war, and generally made a serious war between countries that have access to the way to destructive to even consider.
2) Well, I couldn't care less. Chances of it happening are so low that there are hundreds of things that are really bothering me ahead of that list. Hence I would do nothing. With that said, though, it also means someone deemed your city to be important enough for it to be nuked, I guess you can also feel proud about it.
3) You can try, but I don't think this is a good idea which can only occur to someone who lived in a country that was in peace so long they don't even understand why their country was peaceful for so long in the first place. Empirical data suggest that countries that get rid of their nuclear weapons tend to regret it.
Kyrylo said…
would try to be as close to centrum of an impact as possible. -- Strangely, this would be a wise decision. And sadly.
Kyrylo said…
Well, there have been open threats from different world leaders. They are careless and unreasonable, but this is far more complicated than it seems.
Kyrylo said…
I don't think anyone should have such power to control over as devastating weapons as nuclear ones. -- The truth is, nobody truly does. The main drawback of nukes is their high instability. One of the Tsar Bomba prototypes was almost accidentally detonated. Oh, what a show it would have been. And their maintenance is not cheap and easy task, a huge part of economy goes into it.
Kyrylo said…
I think that a new war will reforge and change the politics from the way we see them today. This will not necessarily be bad for a new world as there will be slight chance for people to learn from those mistakes, but this will be at a cost. Of the nature and many, many lives.
Kyrylo said…
As I said earlier, I think that nukes are totally not needed and they are just symbol of fear and destruction. -- They are not a mere symbol. The main difference from the symbols is that nukes do work. And kill.
Kyrylo said…
Of course, yes, by joining in strength we can do everything :) -- Pretty optimistic approach! Although joining the strength itself may not prove enough, sadly, A plan, a strategy and a goal are needed. A strict pack of actions.
Kyrylo said…
I really hope it's still possible, but I'm not sure that people in charge wants to give their leverage until everybody does. -- A classical stalemate, everyone agrees, but nobody wants to go first.
1. I think leaders needed something to threaten other coutries and win something thanks to that. It's really hard to say
2. Well, I couldn't do much. Only thing I can think of right now is either go to some safe place or just accept it...
3. In my opinion for now not at all. Everyone of us know that nuclear weapon is very bad and dangerous and we still didn't do anything. Even now there is an agreement between countries to somehow limit these nuclear weapons, but no one knows what the truth is and whether countries really comply with this. Even I think I have heard recently that some countries have broken these rules so...
Ivan Mazuryk said…
1. It is necessary for world balance and it is completely justified. Humanity built more nuclear boms that it is necessary to destroy the planet, so the new world war could be just the end. Or the end of world we know. This is actually the main purpose of nuclear weapon.
2. Why do you think that your city is the target? As I wrote in the first answer if someone uses the nuclear weapon it is the end of the world, not the city.
3. This has no sense. Why should we strike the nuclear weapon if it works for our peaceful future.
Paweł Hadacz said…

1. Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in general. Can their existence be justified? Are they a necessity? How did we even come up to something?
I think that their only use can be the destruction of dangerous objects in space or the fight against aggressive aliens if they exist.

2. How would You feel if You found out that Your home city is on the target list for strategic objects bombing on a map of some world leader? Mine is :) What would You do about it?
It certainly wouldn't be a nice feeling but unfortunately I don't have much influence on the decisions of world leaders regarding their war plans.


3. Do You think that we, regular citizens, can have an impact on declaring nukes immoral and banning them from further usage and manufacturing? Is it even possible at this point?
I think ordinary citizens have no influence on it and despite the protests they are unable to get to the secret plans of the government. Even despite the government's assurances of not working on nuclear weapons, I don't believe they are telling the truth.

In my opinion, atomic bombs shouldn't be constructed just like any weapon. Unfortunately, this is not possible these days
because power comes first. It would be nice for the world to unite and build a better tomorrow together.
If I found myself bombing my city, I'd probably run to the shelter. All in all I don't know how I would behave, but
I do not think about that :). I think so, the first argument is that there are more of us, the next argument is that we create the world
not people's gart. If people had united, there would be no problem
1. They are uncivilized, inhumane and they leave too much destruction for years. It is one of the worst thing that people created. In the past it was used many times only to show how powerful country that detonated it really is.

2. I would run away with my Loved Ones as soon as possible. I would leave my house and city.

3. Because it is most powerful weapon in the world i sadly doubt it would be completely eliminated. The biggest problem of nuclear weapons is that no country will remove it completely if others wouldn't do the same.
1.Everything began with countries willing to ensure safety to their citizens. It ended up with all powerful countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons and it only serves them as a bargaining chip.
2. I don't know if I could do anything. There will always be a place that could potentially become dangerous. I believe that what's going to happen is going to happened.
3. We, as ordinary citizens, have nothing to say. Even if some countries chose not to have atomic weapons, the powers such as the USA, China and Russia would still have the weapons.
Jakub Kisiała said…
1. I think that the very fact of having such weapons by the powers introduces peace in the world.
2. Mine is not.
3. Not possible.

Popular posts from this blog

Week 12 (12.01-18.01.15) Are you an early bird or a night owl ?

Owls are nocturnal creatures. They’re wide awake at night and they sleep during the day. If this sounds like bliss to you, then, like about 20 percent of the population who find themselves most active at around 9 pm, you may fall into the same category as our feathered friend. Night owls often have difficulty waking up in the morning, and like to be up late at night.  Studies of animal behaviour indicate that being a night owl may actually be built into some people’s genes. This would explain why those late-to-bed, late-to-rise people find it so difficult to change their behaviour. The trouble for night owls is that they just have to be at places such as work and school far too early. This is when the alarm clock becomes the night owl’s most important survival tool. Experts say that one way for a night owl to beat their dependence on their alarm clocks is to sleep with the curtains open. The Theory is that if they do so, the morning sunlight will awaken them gently and natura...

Week 11 [03-09.06.2019] The problem with ecological cars emission in UK

The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust.   The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog.   What is smog?   Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds...

Week 4 [06-12.11.2017] This is what happens when you reply to spam email.

James Veitch is a British comedian. In today’s Ted Talk James with characteristic for himself a sense of humor shows how he deals with spam emails and why responding to junk messages may be sometimes dangerous. Questions: What do you think about James’s  way of dealing with spam? Why are junk messages legal, even though it sometimes may be a fraud? Dou you have a problem with spam? How do you deal with with it?