posted
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*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you so sure, Synth? *points to the mountains of corpses that aren't there because we didn't have to invade Japan*
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason I am deeply disturbed by that article... And also by the tone Bush took when talking about TNW. *throughly freaked out* Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
*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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to strike a balance though. Raw idealism isn't good without logic and realism to back it up.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes. It unfortunately could be placed down the street from the White House to tactically cripple our government.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still cannot think of any situation where it would be worth destroying so many people in such a horrible way.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
