|
Post by donkeydude on Aug 6, 2005 2:30:09 GMT -5
The 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is here, should the US use nuclear weaponry again? Even if attacked first?
|
|
|
Post by Citizen on Aug 6, 2005 10:43:48 GMT -5
No.
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 6, 2005 13:48:04 GMT -5
I think I have a unique perspective on the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan during WWII. Some people say that we shouldn't have done it, but I believe it saved far more lives than it took. One of those lives is very possibly mine. You see, if the bombs had not been dropped, then the US was looking at a prolonged, bloody land based assault on Japan. The emperor of Japan, who was considered to be a god by the Japanese, was arming the very villagers with knives and pitchforks in preparation to battle the US groundforces if they tried to invade Japan. Many American and Japanese lives would have been lost. One of those American lives could very well have been my grandfather. He was in California, getting ready to get shipped off to join the assault forces going to Japan. The atomic bombs broke the will to fight of the Japanese people. They then knew that they could not hope to win against the American forces. The only argument against the use of atomic weapons then that I will even consider is the fact that they did it twice, when they might have been able to get by with only using one. But I for one am thankful that my grandfather was not sent to the land assault of Japan, as I could very well not be here because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen on Aug 6, 2005 14:37:55 GMT -5
We chose to drop those bombs not onto military targets ... but onto civilian populations. To me, that was an evil act.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Aug 6, 2005 14:39:33 GMT -5
I doubt that you will ever see the use of nuclear weapons by American forces in the future. If you think about it, their use by the most powerful and best-equipped military in the world would likely be viewed as cowardice.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Aug 6, 2005 18:00:49 GMT -5
I doubt that you will ever see the use of nuclear weapons by American forces in the future. If you think about it, their use by the most powerful and best-equipped military in the world would likely be viewed as cowardice. Perhaps, but if we continue on the path of cowboy leadership I fear we will actually see the day when we will see thier use.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 6, 2005 19:52:20 GMT -5
The nuclear weapons arsenal of the United States, in the air, in the ground, and in the sea, kept what was the Soviet Union and its allies from full scale attacks on the US and its allies for over 40 years. The USSR with its paranoid leadership beat itself to death thinking the US might attack first. Our "nukes" beat the USSR without ever firing a shot.
Should we use "nukes" again? Current US policy is if and only if attacked first. That's the reason for our three strike mode -- from the ICBMs in the ground, the ALCMs in various aircraft, and SLCMs in "Boomer" submarines all over the globe. No first strike attack can take out a large percentage of the US retaliatory capability. The US advertises this fact to the world. The number of ICBMs, ALCMs, and SLCMs that the US has are published. Every one knows the nuclear might of the US. They just don't know where it is.
The threat that the US will always be able to counter any nuclear attack has been its best defense against such an attack. We call it MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction. It's two guys locked in a room full of gun power, each with a match watching to see if the other guy is going to light his match. The problem is more and more people keep walking into the room with more powder, each bringing their own match.
As for Japan in 1945, there were no "civilian" targets. The Japanese people had been prepared to fight the Allied troops down to the bare sticks and stones. The Japanese mainland was riddled with tunnels. The Japanese would never have surrendered. The Allied forces would have ended up killing far more Japanese and the Japanese far more Allied troops had we not dropped those "nukes."
The "nukes" dropped on Japan demonstated the awesome power of a nuclear bomb. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a 15 "kilo-ton" bomb. Today, a single F-16 fighter can carry a B83 nuclear bomb with nearly 1000 times the power of the "little boy" dropped on Japan.
The mainstay of the US is the B61. It has a yield of 170 "mega-tons" -- 11 thousand times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It weighs about 700 pounds. A single B-52 bomber can carry 100 of these bombs for a total of 17,000,000,000 tons of explosive power. This is estimated to be more than 250 times the power of all the ordinance exploded by both sides during World War II. Just in one aircraft.
We make sure that any potential enemies of the US know these sorts of things. No sane leader of any nation is going to attack the US. For the insane ones, we still have our armed forces. They ain't none too shabby either.
TarueBeliever, USAF (ret.) Special Operations Engineering Officer "I taught McGyver everthing he knows"
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Aug 7, 2005 12:14:24 GMT -5
As for Japan in 1945, there were no "civilian" targets. The Japanese people had been prepared to fight the Allied troops down to the bare sticks and stones. The Japanese mainland was riddled with tunnels. The Japanese would never have surrendered. The Allied forces would have ended up killing far more Japanese and the Japanese far more Allied troops had we not dropped those "nukes." This is what most people don't realize--the Japanese people were making rifles, swords and knives in their homes. Women and children were arming themselves for the oncoming assault. Every man, woman and child was considered to be a combatant by the Japanese gov't; the people were told the Americans would rape their women and eat their children--there would be no surrender. Did you know there were Japanese women and children on Iwo Jima? They fought to the death, with a few choosing suicide rather than capture. Women threw their babies off a cliff before jumping themselves. Of 22,000 Japanese men, women and children on Iwo at the start of the battle, fourteen survived. A invasion of the home islands would have been even worse. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only saved American lives, they saved Japanese lives as well.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 8, 2005 8:13:11 GMT -5
As for Japan in 1945, there were no "civilian" targets. The Japanese people had been prepared to fight the Allied troops down to the bare sticks and stones. The Japanese mainland was riddled with tunnels. The Japanese would never have surrendered. The Allied forces would have ended up killing far more Japanese and the Japanese far more Allied troops had we not dropped those "nukes." This is what most people don't realize--the Japanese people were making rifles, swords and knives in their homes. Women and children were arming themselves for the oncoming assault. Every man, woman and child was considered to be a combatant by the Japanese gov't; the people were told the Americans would rape their women and eat their children--there would be no surrender. Did you know there were Japanese women and children on Iwo Jima? They fought to the death, with a few choosing suicide rather than capture. Women threw their babies off a cliff before jumping themselves. Of 22,000 Japanese men, women and children on Iwo at the start of the battle, fourteen survived. A invasion of the home islands would have been even worse. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only saved American lives, they saved Japanese lives as well. I sympathize with your point but ought we settle for such a utilitarian calculus when deciding on moral issues? Is it just a matter of estimating lives lost and saved? Do the ends justify the means no matter how intrinsically wrong the means may be?
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 8, 2005 10:39:00 GMT -5
So what would have been the correct course of action in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 9, 2005 8:43:11 GMT -5
So what would have been the correct course of action in your opinion? My history is weak. One would hope that a demonstration of the powerful bomb would be enough to compel a surrender. But evidently there was no surrender even after the first bomb was dropped on a populated area. And given the Japanese culture in which honor bound even children to the duty of defending the land and the emperor there may have been no better alternative. My concern is that he who has the biggest weapon is the winner and thus the one who defines what is right and moral, what is justified and what is acceptable. Or that morality can be measured by counting results. Sometimes we are only left with choosing the lesser of two evils. That does not make the lesser evil good. We must be very careful in deciding when it is time for the last resort. You attack me and I am justified in defending myself. Does that mean anything goes? Can I shoot you if you have no weapon? Stab you when you are down to make sure you stay down? Are there no limits?
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 9, 2005 16:49:44 GMT -5
So what would have been the correct course of action in your opinion? My history is weak. One would hope that a demonstration of the powerful bomb would be enough to compel a surrender. But evidently there was no surrender even after the first bomb was dropped on a populated area. And given the Japanese culture in which honor bound even children to the duty of defending the land and the emperor there may have been no better alternative. My concern is that he who has the biggest weapon is the winner and thus the one who defines what is right and moral, what is justified and what is acceptable. Or that morality can be measured by counting results. Sometimes we are only left with choosing the lesser of two evils. That does not make the lesser evil good. We must be very careful in deciding when it is time for the last resort. You attack me and I am justified in defending myself. Does that mean anything goes? Can I shoot you if you have no weapon? Stab you when you are down to make sure you stay down? Are there no limits? I understand where you are coming from, and it is true that the people in a position of power have the option of either abusing that power or using it for honorable purposes. It is easy to argue that the ends never justify the means, and they don't. So I guess really what we should do is mourn the fact that this type of action was needed. That this was seemingly the only way to bring about a quick end to the war with as few casualties on both sides as possible. There are sometimes decisions where you cannot choose between a "good" choice and a "bad" choice. In fact, most often then not, it is usually is a choice between different shades of gray, all having good and bad qualities.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 9, 2005 17:56:43 GMT -5
Does this mean that when Eastern Europe was under attack by the Muslims in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Popes should have turned a deaf ear to the Europeans' cries for help? Shouldn't the Europeans have "turned the other cheek" and let the Muslims run over them thus showing them the peaceful ways of Christ? Weren't the Christian knights and soldiers' weapons "intrinsically evil?"
After WWII, the US was the only power in the world. The Strategic Air Command ruled the world. But we did not abuse the power we had. Western Germany, Japan, and all their conquered territory that was in our control, we gave back to the peoples who lived there. We didn't create a vast empire under our domination like we could have. We spent huge amounts of American money to lift those countries from the stone age back to modern living. Now, 60 years later, they bad mouth us ever chance they can.
We've been very responsible with our nuclear weapons. I'm not saying we're perfect. There've been accidents with nuclear weapons. But catagorically, what's the difference between a nuclear weapon and the bare hands Cain used on Abel? They both kill.
Why argue about what weapons are used? Instead, spread the word about Christ Jesus and live your life like you believe what you say.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 10, 2005 8:16:37 GMT -5
Why argue about what weapons are used? Instead, spread the word about Christ Jesus and live your life like you believe what you say. Well nuclear weapons do a lot more than just kill the target. There is a great deal of indiscriminant destruction including the environement for future generation. We're talking radio active here.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Aug 10, 2005 12:56:08 GMT -5
While I do not condone the actions, I also can not condemn them. What is it people say - hind sight is 20/20. There are many things that could and would be different had we known what would have happened if.... In regards to nukes being used at the present time, I don't see it happening unless there was some type of initial attack. They served their purpose with the USSR, however history DOES have a way of repeating itself - unfortunately in some cases. Those of you that are military probably already realize of know this but - we are arming our ships as we did back in WWII. This is because the war we fight now if similar - it's hand to hand and "up close & personal". I chuckled at the cowboy comment - but in a way you are right - that's how our worlds fight presently - more like the wild west over there. As i said before - history does have a way of repeating itself.
|
|