If Iran wants nukes, should we send them some?

[Ecthy]

Are you aware that "justiifcation" is a totally irrelevant topos?

[GePap]

You could probably have probably easily convicted the leaders of the American and especially British airforces for their campaign of bombing cities indescriminately.

That is, if you are going to say that attacking civlians is wrong. If anyone is a valid target in a war, then no, these campaigns, or those carried out by the Germans or Japanese should not be counted as war crimes, but then, what could?

[snoopy369]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as military targets, not due to their smaller size. True, we knew we were killing a lot of people, but we chose the cities that would make a military difference if Japan kept on fighting.

In some theories, Dresden was also a military target, though I think the justification for that was somewhat weaker. Ball bearings or some such?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Traianvs
I don't know how you can ethically account for killing hundreds of thousands, and laying waste to the lands for ages to come in the process, to save a comparatively small amount of your own citizens. Especially when you're on the winning side it would be utterly pointless.

Also think of the post-war situation. You would have wasted large portions of land, so the country would not be able to recover from such devastation, and it would remain a source of unrest or instability for a long time and it would generate unfriendly feelings as well!
Just think of the fact that after war is done, it could become a valuable trading partner for example like Germany is now.

Nuking is, in my opinion, never justified. It doesn't really serve a purpose. Having nukes though is less of a problem, because everyone has them and it would be pointless to use them for that reason.

nagasaki and hiroshima are hardly wasted portions of land. IIRC it takes hundreds even thousands of nukes to start making serious fallout issues that last more than a couple of years.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lancer
It was an unfriendly war on both sides.

Really? Wars are unfriendly? Thanks!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Geronimo
IIRC it takes hundreds even thousands of nukes to start making serious fallout issues that last more than a couple of years.

I like to see some numbers on that one.

Chernobyl.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I like to see some numbers on that one.

Chernobyl.

exactly. just compare the aftermath of cherobyl to nagasaki or hiroshima.

[GePap]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as military targets, not due to their smaller size. True, we knew we were killing a lot of people, but we chose the cities that would make a military difference if Japan kept on fighting.

In some theories, Dresden was also a military target, though I think the justification for that was somewhat weaker. Ball bearings or some such?

HIroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because most large Japanese cities had already been laid waste in raids that were sometimes ever more costly in human lives. What is the point of nuking square miles of ruble like the middle of Tokyo after the March raids?

The US did not expect the destruction of whatever military targets there were in those cities to be the cause of japanese collapse, after all, they could just as well have laid waste to those targets the old fashioned way, through massive indescriminate B-29 raids. The US expected the awsome new destructiveness of these weapons, and the massive damage they would cause, invariably killing tens of thousands of civilians without question, to impress upon the Japanese that it was surrender or national suicide, their choice.

TO say then that HIroshima and Nagasaki wwre military targets is a bit silly. If anything, they were the only raids that finally did achieve the stated goal of forcing national collapse throught the targeting of the population to push them towards peace, ie. a strategy of strategic terror, make the population fear random death from above to push their leaders to cave in. BUt because the bombs came from planes, not trucks, or strapped to guys, its called war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I like to see some numbers on that one.

Chernobyl.

Nuclear weapons release most of their radioactivity in one quick blast, and while this certainly does infect the land nearby, you can;t compare the radioactivity of one short burst of fission, vs. prolonged fission like in a reactor like Chernobyl.

Thought Geronimo exagerates, since a few Islands in the Pacific that were used for nuclear tests are not safe to inhabit yet, but the point is that a nuclear meltdown will probably release more radioactivity than asingle atomic blast.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


HIroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because most large Japanese cities had already been laid waste in raids that were sometimes ever more costly in human lives. What is the point of nuking square miles of ruble like the middle of Tokyo after the March raids?

The US did not expect the destruction of whatever military targets there were in those cities to be the cause of japanese collapse, after all, they could just as well have laid waste to those targets the old fashioned way, through massive indescriminate B-29 raids. The US expected the awsome new destructiveness of these weapons, and the massive damage they would cause, invariably killing tens of thousands of civilians without question, to impress upon the Japanese that it was surrender or national suicide, their choice.

TO say then that HIroshima and Nagasaki wwre military targets is a bit silly. If anything, they were the only raids that finally did achieve the stated goal of forcing national collapse throught the targeting of the population to push them towards peace, ie. a strategy of strategic terror, make the population fear random death from above to push their leaders to cave in. BUt because the bombs came from planes, not trucks, or strapped to guys, so its called war.

actually once war breaks out I think even bombs in trucks or strapped to guys would be considered part of the war.

If terrorist managed to drop a bomb on a city using a plane it would still be labelled terrorism.

Nonetheless I agree that it's unethical to attack civilians as a means of forcing a favorable military outcome.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Traianvs
I don't know how you can ethically account for killing hundreds of thousands, and laying waste to the lands for ages to come in the process, to save a comparatively small amount of your own citizens. Especially when you're on the winning side it would be utterly pointless.

Also think of the post-war situation. You would have wasted large portions of land, so the country would not be able to recover from such devastation, and it would remain a source of unrest or instability for a long time and it would generate unfriendly feelings as well!
Just think of the fact that after war is done, it could become a valuable trading partner for example like Germany is now.

Nuking is, in my opinion, never justified. It doesn't really serve a purpose. Having nukes though is less of a problem, because everyone has them and it would be pointless to use them for that reason.

To be fair the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny by today's standards and combined killed something like 150,000 people. I really don't think you can make an argument for how the Japanese main islands could have been taken with fewer than 150k casualties for the Americans and Japanese, though granted those would have been soldiers and not civilians. Also, given that those cities still exist, I don't think the laying waste for generations argument really applies, though more modern nukes would have probably made them unlivable.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
Nuclear weapons release most of their radioactivity in one quick blast, and while this certainly does infect the land nearby, you can;t compare the radioactivity of one short burst of fission, vs. prolonged fission like in a reactor like Chernobyl.

IIRC, modern nuclear devices ("hydrogen bombs") has a layer of radioactive material as the outermost layer. It is supposed to be blasted into the target area, causing contemination.

[SlowwHand]

Yes, we should fly a nuke into Iran.

[dannubis]

congratulations, you just hit a mountain and turned it into glass !!!

gain ?
nothing

loss ?
every stupid/crazy ****er with a bomb has a precedent to use it... are you sure you can check each and every container that comes into your ports ?

[Drake Tungsten]

TO say then that HIroshima and Nagasaki wwre military targets is a bit silly.

No it's not. If the U.S. had really been so gung ho on killing as many people as possible and making a statement, they would've nuked Kyoto...