Nuclear Weapons- Who should have them and why?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If there was a legitimate case for the use of nuclear weapons to save the lives of allied forces in 1945, why couldn’t the same argument be used to attack another sovereign nation today?

Indeed, that is a valid question. I have no sane answer, except to note that atomic weapons do exist, and will likely always exist-- the methods to create them having been unleashed upon the world, never to be returned. A sort of nuclear pandora's box.

If you have a tool? It's far more likely you will use the tool, than not, especially if the cost was dear.

Hindsight is always 100%, isn't it?

Back in 1945? The US was facing years of inch-by-inch curbing of the Japanese army, which showed zero sign of stopping.

In fact: Tokyo had been firebombed into near oblivion long before Hiroshima, and neither the Japanese government, nor it's people showed the slightest sign of surrender. Quite the reverse-- they seemed to double-down in their frenzy to be conquerors.

The Bluff that the US could drop an atomic bomb every week seemed to be required, to get them to Pay Attention. It was a Bluff, of course-- our next working device was months (if not years) away from use.

If you listen to the speech given by Truman? It's evident he wanted it to seem the US was ready to drop a bomb a week until either Japan was just gone, or it's government surrendered.

I was not there-- I cannot say either way. I wish the world was not so war-like, but if wishes were real, we'd all have Flying Cars by now.

I think the dropping of two devices was, sadly, required. Look at the words from the Japanese government just after Hiroshima-- not even a little bit contrite, let alone a surrender.

It's easy to Moralize the Past, in the hindsight of the Present.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Indeed, that is a valid question. I have no sane answer, except to note that atomic weapons do exist, and will likely always exist-- the methods to create them having been unleashed upon the world, never to be returned. A sort of nuclear pandora's box.

If you have a tool? It's far more likely you will use the tool, than not, especially if the cost was dear.

Hindsight is always 100%, isn't it?

Back in 1945? The US was facing years of inch-by-inch curbing of the Japanese army, which showed zero sign of stopping.

In fact: Tokyo had been firebombed into near oblivion long before Hiroshima, and neither the Japanese government, nor it's people showed the slightest sign of surrender. Quite the reverse-- they seemed to double-down in their frenzy to be conquerors.

The Bluff that the US could drop an atomic bomb every week seemed to be required, to get them to Pay Attention. It was a Bluff, of course-- our next working device was months (if not years) away from use.

If you listen to the speech given by Truman? It's evident he wanted it to seem the US was ready to drop a bomb a week until either Japan was just gone, or it's government surrendered.

I was not there-- I cannot say either way. I wish the world was not so war-like, but if wishes were real, we'd all have Flying Cars by now.

I think the dropping of two devices was, sadly, required. Look at the words from the Japanese government just after Hiroshima-- not even a little bit contrite, let alone a surrender.

It's easy to Moralize the Past, in the hindsight of the Present.

My post entirely evaded the issue of responsibility for the dropping of two nuclear bombs. Its a fascinating historical discussion where views are polarised. The more relevant issue now is that if the use of nuclear weapons could be justified then, they can be justified now. So while the nuclear deterrent argument has some merit, it could also be considered fortuitous nuclear weapons haven’t been used for the last 74 years. Nuclear deterrence works until it doesn’t work. With a growing list of countries now part of the nuclear club it becomes harder to say who can have nuclear weapons and why. If nine countries can have them, why not them all? As more countries acquire nuclear weapons it looks increasingly risky they will be used again.

There’s insufficient political will at the moment to unilaterally disarm. That’s what’s required because you can’t get the ‘wrong kind of countries’ to agree to disarm while the ‘right kind of countries’ keep them. The only likely reason countries will agree to disarm is if a nuclear bomb is used again.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If there was a legitimate case for the use of nuclear weapons to save the lives of allied forces in 1945, why couldn’t the same argument be used to attack another sovereign nation today?

If it would shorten the war and reduce the number of casualties on both sides, then you might make the argument. Pr

Indeed, that is a valid question. I have no sane answer, except to note that atomic weapons do exist, and will likely always exist-- the methods to create them having been unleashed upon the world, never to be returned. A sort of nuclear pandora's box.

If you have a tool? It's far more likely you will use the tool, than not, especially if the cost was dear.

Hindsight is always 100%, isn't it?

Back in 1945? The US was facing years of inch-by-inch curbing of the Japanese army, which showed zero sign of stopping.

In fact: Tokyo had been firebombed into near oblivion long before Hiroshima, and neither the Japanese government, nor it's people showed the slightest sign of surrender. Quite the reverse-- they seemed to double-down in their frenzy to be conquerors.

The Bluff that the US could drop an atomic bomb every week seemed to be required, to get them to Pay Attention. It was a Bluff, of course-- our next working device was months (if not years) away from use.

If you listen to the speech given by Truman? It's evident he wanted it to seem the US was ready to drop a bomb a week until either Japan was just gone, or it's government surrendered.

I was not there-- I cannot say either way. I wish the world was not so war-like, but if wishes were real, we'd all have Flying Cars by now.

I think the dropping of two devices was, sadly, required. Look at the words from the Japanese government just after Hiroshima-- not even a little bit contrite, let alone a surrender.

It's easy to Moralize the Past, in the hindsight of the Present.

Even after the bombs fell and the Japanese were contemplating surrender, a coup against the Emperor developed to prevent surrender.

Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My post entirely evaded the issue of responsibility for the dropping of two nuclear bombs. Its a fascinating historical discussion where views are polarised. The more relevant issue now is that if the use of nuclear weapons could be justified then, they can be justified now. So while the nuclear deterrent argument has some merit, it could also be considered fortuitous nuclear weapons haven’t been used for the last 74 years. Nuclear deterrence works until it doesn’t work. With a growing list of countries now part of the nuclear club it becomes harder to say who can have nuclear weapons and why. If nine countries can have them, why not them all? As more countries acquire nuclear weapons it looks increasingly risky they will be used again.

There’s insufficient political will at the moment to unilaterally disarm. That’s what’s required because you can’t get the ‘wrong kind of countries’ to agree to disarm while the ‘right kind of countries’ keep them. The only likely reason countries will agree to disarm is if a nuclear bomb is used again.

I'd love to see all nuclear armaments eliminated. The cynic in me, however, notes how easy it is to create these things, and that the information is "out in the wild" for anyone with a will could create even a crude one.

Unfortunately, even the crudest of them all is enough to destroy a city.

I do not see a way through, either, so long as Power and Greed remains the principle motivator for Government, or more accurately, to those seeking control thereof.

The problem with universal disarmament? Is that one insane guy-- that one wacky leader-- who refuses to play along.

And spoils it for everyone. In the Kingdom of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is King.

In a No Nukes World-- that one guy with a rogue nuke can hold the world hostage-- literally.

I do not see a solution. I wish there was, but idealistically saying "no nukes" is about as effective as trying to banish the internet....

.... it's too easy to get around such prohibitions. Just ask the former government of Egypt-- wait-- you can't. They tried controlling the internet-- but it was used as a tool to overthrow them, and they are No More.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If it would shorten the war and reduce the number of casualties on both sides, then you might make the argument. Pr


Even after the bombs fell and the Japanese were contemplating surrender, a coup against the Emperor developed to prevent surrender.

Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia

I did not know that-- thanks. It is fortunate, I expect, that Cooler Heads prevailed, and the surrender did go through.

Even though it was months out? I expect the US would have continued bombing, as more were had, until .... well I shudder to think of the alternative. It would have been even more horrific.