Only meaningful use of nukes was against the population centers of Japan. This appears to be only way they can do any good militarily. The plans to use them against other targets - do they make any sense? es
He asks a question to stimulate discussion. You merely insult. You could have written about the function of deterrence usually associated with nuclear weapons, or the usage of nuclear weapons to knock out electronics in a large area for instance. Instead you merely insult. yet again.
The use of nukes against Japan was hardly meaningful or good. In fact, that was the worst attack of man on man in the history of civilization. Not only did we launch an attack on man, we attacked nature also. Suffice it to say that when man inherited the Earth, he immediately waged war on man and nature. It remains to be seen which one will destroy him first. On the news, there has been talk of actually using these "tactical nuclear weapons" in Iran. I was absultely terrified upon hearing this speculation on national TV. I think the rationale is that we have so many of them, we mise well use them. Look, it doesn't make since. There is an old proverb, "what goes around comes around", "treat others the way you wish to be treated" If we start using these weapons on others, the guess what? Someone will use it on us and it will be completely justified. Not to mention the irreparable damage that these weapons do to our already struggling and destitute environment. Does nature deserve to suffer from our disagreements and our war mongering ways? Really, nature doesn't. The people in other countries don't either. This is certainly most unwise.
artismosi, check who is speculating on using nukes, the liberals, they are the Chicken littles of our time, they love to have all these scarry senairos so they have something to talk about, and if you check out the plans for the invasion of Japan at the least one million casualties were avoided, the estimates that I have read called for 1,000,000 wonded and dead, and if you do any studie of these estimates generaly run low by 50%, the war had to be conclueded with the removal of the military leadership who started it, and the only thing that finnally convinced the Emperor to act was the Atomic weapons, remember the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7th, 1941 in a sneak attack like the terroist did on Sep.11, 2001, both with out warning, but at least the Japanese hit military targets!
Who the fuck are you trying to impress ?? The it made no sense what so ever. But you keep patting yourself on the back for being above all that.
As Spurious said, nukes can be used for deterrence, and for that, the attacks on japanese cities by the USA in World War 2 make the nukes the US still posseses today even more valuable. It shows that they used them once, and not even tactical nukes but pure weapons of mass destruction, and might well use them again, perhaps not in that scale, but than again, it was the biggest demonstration of military power, was it not? And surely the USA was recognized as a world power beyond doubt at that point. Of course, I would never say it was morally right, nonetheless, that gave a longlasting tactical advantage, and a very good picture of what might happen when a country with nuclear weapons is challenged or provoked. And those tactical nuclear weapons employed today also have a very practical aspect for the military, they can create a big force (explosion) and knock out electronic devices all in one, while still being more compact than traditional explosives. To this, the sheer image of previous employments of nuclear weapons must be added, and thus, those things are quite effective for the military, and, of course, for the government or political groupings.
agreed You're missing the point. The reason we won the war is because we had the nukes and they didn't. Also, the nuclear weapons didn't only kill people, they completely destroyed ever inkling of nature in hiroshima and nagasaki. We were up against a formidable advisary in Japan. Trust me, no one wanted to fight the Japanese after seeing what they did in China. They had a formidable and state-of-the-art army. However, the US took a HUGE risk in dropping those weapons. No one really knew what the outcome would be. The ends doesn't justify the means. The end is that Japan surrendered and we didn't have to fight a bloody war like the Russians did against the Germans to outz the blitzkrieg. Pearl harbor wasn't a terroist act. That was war. When you are at war, there are casualitites. Americans seem to have forgetten that. We seem to think only our advisaries should perish. That is not the case. In any war, there are casualties on both side. If we engage Iran, there will be casualties. The dropping of the nuclear weapon was the greatest act of destruction of one man on another man as well as man against nature. It sent a clear message: war is no longer man v.s. man but cutting edge v.s. man (i.e. the radiation after the blast is a natural effect that kills people LONG after the bomb is dropped and renders the land barren and useless). Just imagine it, okay. Dropping an nuclear bomb on people is like taking a can of ant killer and killing an entire colony of defenseless ants. You don't know who you're killing. Everyone in Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't soldiers, ya know. So, you advocate completely obliterating parts of the planet whenever there is the threat of losing war. What if Iran was winning a war against the US? Would you nuke the middle east? Behold, a world full of war mongers.
Actually, nukes have little value. Here's why. When you are a country with weapons this powerful, your tactical advantage lies in the fact that other countries do not possess them. Therefore, strategically, you must live in constant paranoia and a constant state of war. Also, you must spend vast sums on intelligence to ensure that other countries aren't making them. Having nukes, therefore, leaves you in constant paranoia. Another county only has to have 1 or 2 of these weapons to be a threat and even the balance of power, whereas, before nuclear weapons a large and advance army was hard to come by and took lots of money and training to develop. It is only a matter of time before other countries get nukes in which case they will be of little value. They will no longer be a deterrent. As a rule, it is impossible to use nuclear weapons on a country that possesses nuclear weapons in war. It is AMORAL to use nuclear weapons at all. Not only is the loss of human life catostrophic. The destruction to the environment is even worse. I fail to see the value in nuclear weapons. How do you know that these weapons are practical? Have you ever had one used against you?
According to your logic, "someone" would be "justified" already. but it is not how the world works. Japan is our friend. I say, use them to the fullest, or do not use at all. es
Did you consider alternative? Even a little small war like in Iraq, dragging for years, produces destruction and environment damage, which is probably much higher than would be from short nuclear attack. es
The big-assed nukes of the old days are really not good for much. You get a big boom, a fantastic propaganda defeat. But you'll still hit what you were aiming for - which was the rationale back in the day - nowadays we have tomahawk missiles and the like for that.
There have been tactical nukes for a long time. The east block was dependent on a massive amount of tanks and such to stage a fight in Europe. Nato could never mount a similar mass of forces. They had to adapt different strategies. One was for instance the development of the A10 wharthog tankkiller. A simple airplane designed to kill as many tanks as possible, another tactic was small tactical nukes, to be deployed at massive concentrations of armour.
Artistmosi, I just went on a little trip through my computer to Hiroshima, the pictures show a very lovely city with many gardens, trees, flowers, animals, birds and humans, I did not see any mutations, the agriculture in the aeria seems to be flourishing, or are you stuck in a time warp in 1945, the world , mother nature, has a very great capacity to heal itself, mother nature herself has a great ability to do harm to there is a snake in the pacific called the Brown Tree Snake that has the ability to survive for long period, find any crack to hide in, and no natural enemies, it has wipe out 10 bird species, several bats spicies, and is now going after the ground dwelling skink, purtty good wipe out by mother nature don't you think, and not one bit of radiation, just Darwins theory of survival, And no we still would have won the war with out nuclear weapons, but at a much higher cost in human lives both Japanese and American, we had beaten our way to the very doorstep of Japan, and if not for The Nuclear Weapons WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO INVADE THE MAIN LAND ! and now you justify the loss of life that would have occured in doing so, how would you like to have been the person to write the letters to all the families that would have lost their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers........... Lives were saved, and nature repaired herself, with a little help from Man. Look at the reaconstruction, that the United States did in Japain to help them back from the war they started and we finished. Name another country so magnamious in history to it's defeated enemys as to reconstruct their nation for them!
The most important part of your post, IMO. And something many people overlook, Japan is a world super power now. The U.S. defeated them in a war, and then propped them up to become an economic powerhouse with a less opressive society. I would even venture to say that Japan is better off having lost the war.
See, you clearly misstate the "rationale". It was to defeat the will of enemy. The small nukes only are not going to do that. es
Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, hopfully even if Iran gets nukes they wont use them because to do so would be to have some one use them against them. When the Soviets and USA were locked in the cold war the nuclear weapons each state had put the states into a state of mutually assured destruction (or pleasingly M.A.D for short.) Where by if one state attacked the other both nation states would be completely destroyed.
