Can nuclear weapons be used tactically?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Certainly.
But more importantly, what do you mean when you say "used tactically?"
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know... It's something that Bush said and it freaked me out to no end... What does that mean? Nuclear weapons should NEVER be used! *points to Hiroshima and Nagasaki*
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Are you so sure, Synth? *points to the mountains of corpses that aren't there because we didn't have to invade Japan*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't know that I would ever advocate using nukes as anything but weapons of last resort and total committment.
There is very little that nukes accomplish that cannot be similarly achieved with conventional explosives.
Besides the pesky radioactive fallout and general site contamination.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes I am sure! Do you have any idea what they had to go through after that attack? People with their skin melting off their bodies and maggots nesting in their wounds. We shouldn't even have those things in the first place. There is no reason why they should even exist....
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And the idea of US marines littering beaches and streets, the bloated corpses in the hot Pacific sun is somehow more appealing?
There is a lot of debate as to whether or not nuking was absolutely required. An equal number of people will argue two nukes were not needed to make a point.
The undeniable result - the war was effectively over and the Japanese surrender was more formality than any real requirement.
What role have nukes played in modern politics? A very tense game of "chicken", or more properly known as peace through superior firepower.
It helps maintain a certain balance of power, while helping to direct certain ambitions in specific and relatively easily monitored directions. Although with the disintegration of the former Soviet Bloc, it's coming back to haunt the world at large.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It has too high a cost. Money and resources that can go towards helping people go towards these monsterous weapons. The corpes of soldiers isn't any better but these were civilians. Innocent men, women and children who died and some of those that survived suffered terrible illnesses. Something like that should never happen again... I've read some sources that said that Japan was on the verge of surrendering before the bombs hit.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nice link, T..
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
For some reason I am deeply disturbed by that article... And also by the tone Bush took when talking about TNW. *throughly freaked out* Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Syn, do you know what napalm does to skin? We're talking about WWII, before precision guided weapons, where civilians were bound to get killed no matter the objective. Furthermore, the Japanese civilians were being prepared to fight to the death. Basically there were going to be soldiers forcing the civilians to fight with pitchforks if necessary. With the enevitable house to house fighting countless noncombatants would have died anyways.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
War is messy. People die. Civilians die.
I place the lives of US servicemen and women above the lives of enemy civilians. Call it a quirk.
Japan might have surrendered, it might not have. That is another subject of debate. I will also point out Japanese women and children leapt to their deaths rather than be captured by US forces because of stories circulated by the Japanese propaganda.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But not poisoned by radiation for generations... Or having to watch their children die of cancer... I'm an idealist, but... Shouldn't the one thing we learn from that be, to be corny and cliche, that war is NOT the answer, especially with these kind of weapons?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Tell that to the people who attacked Pearl Harbor.
We did not initiate WW2, nor did we initiate the conflict in the Pacific - well, we didn't take military action first, at any rate.
The Empire of Japan could have surrendered long before any invasion of the mainland was required, but it chose not to.
And quite frankly, if you're going to pick a fight, you had best be prepared to accept the consequences, win or lose.
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course Nukes can be used tactically as well as strategically. The fact that you asked the question at all makes me think that you don't know what the word means.
If nukes should *never* be used at all then neither should conventional bombs, artillery, guns, knives, clubs, rocks, or our fingernails.
They are all tools. They can all be used for good, and they can all be used for bad. There is a price that must be paid for using any of them.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, there is the technical definition of "tactics" and "strategy" and then there's the definition of a "tactical weapon system" which tends to be a little more unclear.
You could argue any weapon has both tactical and strategic uses, but that doesn't address just what a "tactical" nuke is and how it differs from other types of nukes.
-Trevor
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think the price for nukes are so high in costs for future generations that they should be used in last-resort types of situations though.
Can they be used? Yes.....
Should they be used? Well....
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What sort of last resort situation? Is there anything worth that kind of destruction?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Killing 20,000 should be worth saving 1,000,000
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*now disturbed by the " " after that statement* Somehow... for somer eason... I can't completely agree... I chalk it up to raw innocence and wonder if there is a way to save them all or at least as many as possible...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes.
Or at least the threat of that destruction.
As grotesque as it sounds, the arsenals of nuclear weapons have forced a strained peace between the world's two super-powers for what, fifty years?
Proceeding from a strategic approach, destroy an enemy's infrastructure and you destroy his ability to fight in traditional operations.
Sherman's March to Atlanta may have been brutal, but it was also highly effective and broke the back of Southern resistance in no uncertain terms.
Now, imagine that on a much larger scale.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Human nature being what it is, I highly doubt it Syn.
Of course, idealists serve a nice check and balance against the more jaded among us, so don't be too depressed at your eternal optimism.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Human nature is a phrase that frustrates me... If it's human nature to be distructive, isn't it also human nature to do the opposite? Hmm... perhaps my idealism isn't in vain....
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Be as idealistic as you like - there will always be someone willing to fight over which side of the bread should be buttered.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I need to strike a balance though. Raw idealism isn't good without logic and realism to back it up.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. Keep posting, listen to the responses and look at the subject from the opposite point of view.
There are more than a few wits on this board who will cheerfully challenge your positions - the trick is to not be afraid to question yourself and face the answers honestly.
-Trevor
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I encourage everyone to study Pre-WWII japanese culture and thought and also their approach to War up through the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.
I am in the middle of reading "Flyboys" and the beginning chapters give great detail about the Japanese Military Mentallity which WAS the culture for the entire Island up to the bombs dropping.
It basically boils down to this.
We would have had to kill many, many times more Japanese men, women and children. They were taught to fight to the death.
We napalmed the whole Island multiple times before dropping the bombs and they STILL would not surrender. They kept fighting and fighting and fighting although there was no POSSIBLE way they could win.
They would have fought to the last woman/child as long as we were in front of them to fight.
However, you can't fight "the bomb". The bombs were dropped to END the war. And they did.
When you are told to fight to the death as long as your enemy is in your sight, but your enemy is no longer visible, but can kill you at will, then there is no reason for you to die fighting what cannot be fought.
As sickening as dropping the bombs were, having to kill just about every Japanese on the Island to end the war (and also incurring the casualties of many many more Americans) which would been a complete Genocide, would have been much worse to me.
Those bombs saved more American and Japanese lives than they took.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I place the lives of US servicemen and women above the lives of enemy civilians. Call it a quirk
Really Trevor? I find that very very sad.
Do you value the lives of US servicemen and women above the lives of US civilians also? That's the only way I can justify that sentiment in my mind.
***
Syn - personally, I think stockpiling nuclear weapons is inherently dangerous. I'm not that afraid that the countries in control will use them, but I think the more weapons grade uranium around, the less safe the world is. The materials do get smuggled, rogue states can be come nuclear capable and that scares the heck out of me.
But I also think there is no arguing that the nuclear deterrent has saved a lot of lives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IMO, the only country against whom we would ever benefit from the use of tacnukes would be China, mainly because China's numerical advantage literally dissolves when tacnukes are put into the equation.
But China is also one of those countries we will NEVER use tacnukes against, precisely because we know that they will use strategic nukes if we ever used tacnukes.
What I believe Bush is trying to do with this speech is create a moral line between tacnukes and strategic nukes -- to suggest to the people of the world that the use of one is nothing more "serious" than a really big conventional bomb, whereas the use of the second is still nasty and evil. If this becomes commonly accepted, we would benefit from being able to use tacnukes in the field while still expecting that world opinion would prevent our opponents from retaliating with strategic nukes.
IMO, though, this ignores one obvious reality: no nuclear-enabled country in the world, involved in any battle important enough for us to use tacnukes, would let us win without using their strategic nuclear arsenal. China, if on the verge of defeat, will launch. America, if on the verge of defeat, would launch. So if tacnukes ever helped us in a material way, world opinion against strategic nukes wouldn't prevent our opponent from using them.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Arguing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a moot point. The genie is out of the bottle.
However, the use of a tactical nuke in today's world will push things over the brink very quickly. Just as we cannot go back to July 31, 1945 and get a re-do on the atomic bomb drops decisions, we wouldn't be able to step back from the use of any nuclear weapon in anger right now.
It's not that we would have to worry about retaliation from any other current nuclear power in the world. Russia won't lob one at us, nor will China. Britain and France definitely won't, and Israel would never use one of theirs on us. India and Pakistan couldn't deliver them and would prefer to keep theirs pointed at each other.
So what's the big deal? Well, if we hop over the line, even using the smallest one in our arsenal, then someone else might use one to make a point. Israel might drop one on the Iranian nuclear facilities, claiming it was done for their own national security.
Pakistan might drop one off on the Indian side of the Kashmir region. Or India might retaliate with a nuke after Kashmiri insurgents attack Indian civilians.
North Korea could sell one off to anyone who wanted one.
And they could all just step back and say, "Well, the US used a nuke to fulfill their country's goals, we demand the same right."
Basically, we can't use one without giving at least some sort of license to others using theirs.
A small nuke can be an easy answer for us for a tactical problem. This is one time, however, the easy answer isn't what we need.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Can nuclear weapons be used tactically?
Yes. It unfortunately could be placed down the street from the White House to tactically cripple our government.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
this has always been US policy.
Back during the cold war, the USSR had a "no first use" policy. We had a "no first strike" policy.
Basically, the Soviet Union said they would not use nukes until nukes had been used against them. We said, "that's fine, we reserve the right to use them on a battlefield, but we will not launch a strike against your homeland with them."
Price of living in a MAD world.
I wouldn't be so sure that we wouldn't use them against China if it came down to it, Tom. We were definitely prepared to use them against a soviet assault. I don't see how China is any different except that the numerical advantage they have is greater and the technical advantage we have is greater.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Somehow... for somer eason... I can't completely agree... I chalk it up to raw innocence and wonder if there is a way to save them all or at least as many as possible...
There are times that using nukes is the way to save as many as possible.
Just pray that we never have a situation like that again.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The world is so messed up that way. In that way, the sacrifice mentality has been true, all the way since the very beginning. If something nets getting done, we'd of course rather sacrifice a few right then than lose more over a longer period.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Still, I can't shake the feeling that it would be wrong no matter what the results were... It would be the greatest moral wrong ever... Especially because of the nuclear fallout...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wouldn't be so sure that we wouldn't use them against China if it came down to it, Tom."
That's not what I was saying. In fact, what I was saying was this: I believe Bush, in making arguments for the use of tacnukes, is attempting to make it politically more feasible to use tacnukes against enemies like China without provoking a strategic nuclear response.
However, I do not believe that this would work in most scenarios, as any country fighting against us in a struggle desperate enough to force us to resort to tacnukes would almost certainly use strategic nukes if it looked like they were losing.
There's one exception, though, and I think it's the one Bush is laying groundwork for: battles over countries not immediately related to the motherland (i.e. Taiwan and North Korea.) By hinting that we're willing to consider tactical nuclear weapons in those situations, we're telling China that they had better be prepared to lob a strategic nuke at us if they move against us on either front.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: There are times that using nukes is the way to save as many as possible.
Just pray that we never have a situation like that again.
Amen that.
Or "here, here!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Synesthesia, I propose that you are responding to this question emotioinally. It's understandable. You've grown up with the idea that nuclear war could be the end of all mankind -- the ultimate evil, if you will.
You say that you have the feeling that it would be wrong no matter the consequences. But one of the reasons you give for that is the consequences of a nuclear blast, namely fallout. While I submit that fallout is horrible, it is not the worst thing that could happen to the human race.
Can you imagine a situation -- however contrived -- where the outcome could be better because of the carful use of a single small nuclear bomb?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tom, I think I would probably agree with that analysis.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I still cannot think of any situation where it would be worth destroying so many people in such a horrible way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
First of all, just because a nuclear bomb is used doesn't determine how many people could die. A small tactical nuke could be used to take out a fleet of warships in the middle of the ocean.
But even if it's used against a city, and it kills 20,000 people. Could that be justified if it saves the horrific death by other means of 200,000? 2,000,000? 2,000,000,000?
Is it not possible that there is a point where doing this horrific thing is less horrific than not doing it?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: Can nuclear weapons be used tactically?
No!
Never!
They are the ultimate in RUDE behavior.
Oh, wait. You said Tactically, not tactfully.
Um.
nevermind.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Tactfully, good one Dan
quote: Back during the cold war, the USSR had a "no first use" policy. We had a "no first strike" policy.Basically, the Soviet Union said they would not use nukes until nukes had been used against them. We said, "that's fine, we reserve the right to use them on a battlefield, but we will not launch a strike against your homeland with them."
Jim-Me I take issue with this, somewhat, Jim.
It recently (2003 or 2004) came out in declassified and published documents that during the Cuban missle crisis in 1962, the USSR had released launch authority of tactical, short-range nukes to local (Cuban and/or Russian) commanders to counter any American invasion.
Thank God Kennedy didn't listen to his advisers who pressed for invasion , but instead choose the middle road of blockade. Otherwise, we would have lost many, many Marines, and probably had a global thermonuclear war.
So while what you stated may have been the public, diplomatic and PR front the Soviets maintained, in reality they were perfectly willing to use nukes first on a battlefield, and in fact, issued orders to that effect.
The simple definition of a tactical nuke is short-range and low-yield, or small, and thus useful on the battlefield (too large a yield will incinerate your own troops as well as the enemy.)
[ September 24, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I have seen several sources that claim that the Dresden firebombings killed more, so I assume it's true. I think the non-nuclear firebombing of Tokyo killed more than 100,000 as well.
[ September 24, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Estimates of what a full scale invasion of Japan would have cost in US soliders: 500,000.
Estimates of what it would have cost in terms of Japanese civilians: Very high
They would have all fought to the death. The proganda against the US was so effective that on captured islands, many civilians committed suicide in fear of what the US soliders would do to them.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The estimates of hundreds of thousands of US and Japanese causulties are reasonable, and more than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
However, there were other options, such as blowing up one city, then having a demonstration to Japanese leaders on an uninhabited isle. Or, two demonstartions. This is explored brilliantly in Robinson's alternate history story "The Lucky Strike."
quote:Among the stories are ``The Lucky Strike,'' which tells about bombardier Frank January, who in an alternate World War II, refuses to drop the Hiroshima bomb, a gesture that lands him in front of a firing squad and eventually ignites a world-wide peace and disarmament movement. [
From barnesandnoble.com, kim Stanley Robinson's The Planet on the Table, which contains the story.
[ September 24, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I don't think that the idea of a tactical nuclear weapon--dropping a low-yielder on a battlefield as opposed to a high-yielder on a city--is new, but as someone I know once put it, it is very hard to cross that particular line halfway.
Having said that, I wonder what the President meant. I can't see an instance where we'd have to tacnuke, simply because terrorists usually don't fight in open space.
Unless he was talking about a different enemy, in which case the above point is moot and you can ignore this post.
--j_k
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Morbo, "Lucky Strike" is called fiction for a reason. In reality we know that a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the Japanese still didn't surrender. In reality we know that dropping an atomic bomb on a deserted island would simply have wasted one of our precious few atomic bombs while giving the Japanese the impression that we were too weak to actually use the bomb in combat or against a city. Remember, the Japanese thought it was our fault for not being ready at Pearl Harbor, not theirs for striking without warning. Its because of the Japanese that Kamakaze is such a well known word.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks for the post Morbo. I enjoyed it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In reality we know ...
Now you're the one writing fiction.It's indeterminate what would have happened if we had nuked an island with Japanese observers after Hirishima, sparing Nagasaki. It could have led to peace or more war, there's no way to know for sure.
My opinion is that Hiroshima was neccesary, Nagasaki was possible over-kill. But I'm damn glad I didn't have to make that decision.
Also, Kamikaze comes from a battle the Japanese were spared. Perhaps they would have avoided battle after seeing 2 nukes, but only one city destroyed. It's certainly plausible.
[ September 24, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Cool, Stroman.
Nfl, my internet time is almost up for the day, will respond more later.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Maybe the problem would be getting Japanese observers who wouldn't attack on site?
I really dunno.
I think the double bomb was more of a "Yes, there is more where that came from now surrender."
Again, I don't know. Just a thought though.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What would be the point of bombing an island with Japanese observers. I can possibly see, although I still don't agree, the other way around. Bombing an island and then when they still don't listen actually nuking a city. But once you've already nuked a city how is showing them another explosion that doesn't kill anyone going to get them to change their minds? If anything it should convince them that we saw what happened the first time and are too scared to do it again.
Editted to add a "?"
Also we had produced very few, bombing an island for the fun of it would have qualified as a "waste."
[ September 24, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The atomic bomb was such a staggering advance in destructive technology that a segment of the Japanese government was convinced that the US had only 1.
They were close.
We had only 2.
The thinking at the time was, since we only have 1 more ready for deployment, do we waste time while the war is still going on and people are still dieing to prove it by arranging somehow, to get impartial observers and Japanese observers to watch us bomb an mostly deserted island, or do we fake them out by bombing another city.
We bombed another city. I don't think that was a mistake.
I am reminded of the comic book Remo Williams. Here the US Government's most secret agency arranges special espionage training for a young man with a disgruntled Korean martial arts expert. A movie was made of it that is quite funny, but not as biting as the comic book.
The first mission that Remo went on was to get the prototype of a new army gun. The gun could shoot over a quarter of a mile. And it shot tactical nuclear bombs that devastated everything in a three mile radius.
As you can imagine, there were not a lot of soldiers willing to carry this into battle.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
From what I remember from Asian History class, the second atomic bomb was dropped because Japan hesitated in surrendering and started to make a move towards a negotiated, rather than unconditional surrender.
And as Dan said, it put the question of "Did we have any more bombs ready?" right out of their minds. There was no question after Nagasaki that we would do this again and again until it was over.
Some have also speculated that the second bomb was dropped as a warning shot to the Soviets, to push them out of the driver's seat in determining the fate of Europe.
But that's really just speculation. I'm not sure Truman would have done it for that reason, he has a reputation for being very straight-forward in his thinking.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm sorry we disagree Imogen, but in an "us" versus "them" dispute, I'll vote for "us" rather than "them."
The idea of sacrificing US soldiers (as I am a US citizen) in order to spare civilian casualties in a war zone is, quite frankly, a needless waste of American lives.
I freely admit this perspective is biased because I happen to be an American, but I would imagine most countries would not be amused at sacrificing their soldiers to spare or even minimize civilian casualties in war zones.
Now, if this callous disregard for non-US citizens or perhaps a more motivated concern for US citizens gives us pause before intervening in foreign affairs, I can only think of that as a good thing.
-Trevor
Posted by Tullaan (Member # 5515) on :
Just an interesting fact.
The Purple Heart's that are being awarded to soldiers today were made in preparation of a Japanese main-land invasion.
They expected well over a million US casualties.
Japanese casualties would have been much, much higher.
Just from simple starvation it was estimated between 7 and 10 million Japanese deaths.
BTW, if your grandfather(s) served in WWII, (like mine did), they could easily have been one of the casualties and you wouldn't be around today.
Tullaan
*edited 'cause I can't spell**
[ September 24, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Tullaan ]
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)