Nuclear Weapons

[davec.0121]

Today, August 9, is the 67th aniversary of dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. So - a reflection or two on the use of nuclear weapons. Was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary and justified or unnecessary and unjustified? Under what circumstances (if any) would the use of nuclear weapons be justified today?

[Sidewinder]

1. Was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary and justified or unnecessary and unjustified?

Even Japan agrees that the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right thing to do. They gave Japan an honorable excuse to surrender, rather than fight to the death even though the war was clearly lost. The late Emperor Hirohito has said as much.

2. Under what circumstances (if any) would the use of nuclear weapons be justified today?

For openers, I don't think that anyone will disagree with the idea that an attack with nuclear weapons, whether or not any of the weapons hit anything (as opposed to being shot down in flight) fully justifies a nuclear response. If the attack was fully successfully defended (not currently possible, but we are getting there, despite the Left's most desperate protestations that strategic defense is impossible), it MIGHT be reasonable to give the attacker one chance to surrender, unconditionally, before turning them into radioactive ash.

During the Cold War, the United States (and NATO) refused to sign up for the Soviet-pushed "No First Use" doctrine, because first use of tactical nuclear weapons was (and still is) the only feasible defense against a Soviet conventional attack into Western Europe. The conventional force numbers were (and still are) incredibly lopsided. The Soviets could line up a skirmish line from basically the Med to the Baltic, and head West, and the NATO conventional forces would be not much more than a speed bump. Under those conditions of asymmetry, the choices are starkly limited: surrender or nuclear response.

Today, it is doubtful that the Russian Federation and its allies would seriously consider mounting such an attack, but "doubtful" and even "unthinkable" are not the same as "It won't happen."

Second, in the days immediately following 9/11, nobody on the planet would have argued for a moment if the United States had turned Afghanistan into a radioactive glass parking lot. An attack similar to 9/11, launched by a nation in the control of thugs (as was the case in Afghanistan: the payroll records surfaced in a Kandahar safe house) would certainly justify and probably merit such a response.

[CuteOldGuy]

I am adamantly opposed to war. War is the failure of diplomacy. That being said, I can see where sometimes it may be necessary.

If Congress declares a war, with a definable enemy, a clear definition of victory and a significant national interest at stake, then we should engage and end the war in as short amount of time as possible, and with minimal loss of American lives. If that includes the use of tactical nukes, then use them.

The problem is we keep starting these bullshit wars with undetermined enemies and no declaration of war. So we send our military out to get shot at, while we, at home, feel good that "we got another one." Another what?

If you're going to fight a war, fight the goddam war. Win the damn thing. Then come home.

[gnadfly]

1. Yes.
2. There should be a constitutional amendment stating that "Any unprovoked, undeclared act of war or terrorism on the states of the United States of America that results in over 1,000 death will result in the delivery of 2 nuclear devices of not less than 100K TNT equivalent on the non-domestic origin of attack within 45 days of date of attack.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

1. Yes.
2. There should be a constitutional amendment stating that "Any unprovoked, undeclared act of war or terrorism on the states of the United States of America that results in over 1,000 death will result in the delivery of 2 nuclear devices of not less than 100K TNT equivalent on the non-domestic origin of attack within 45 days of date of attack.

You can kill 999 of us at any one time but not a thousand!

What lunacy.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

. "Any unprovoked, .

Terrorist always think they are provoked btw. That is why they are terrorist!

[Guest123018-4]

1. Yes
2. Anytime we feel it is required to protect ourselves from an enemy.
It is no wonder Obama wants us to have zero nukes, he is the greatest enemy of America.

[i'va biggen]

Off your meds two dogs a fucking?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Terrorist always think they are provoked btw. That is why they are terrorist!

Yasser Arafat, Che Guevara and Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, AKA Carlos the Jackal, and others were psychopaths. They were the ones who "provoked."

To the OP. #1 Justified and expedient. #2 Retaliatory, and if it's in the overall best interest of the U.S.

[JD Barleycorn]

It is bad diplomacy and military strategy to limit yourself in your response at any time. If someone wants to attack the US they should fear a full response. By saying only if you kill over 1,000 or cross this make believe line, or some other crap then you only hurt yourself.

Not one to miss a chance, I point out the many times that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have said that military response is off the table was stupidity.

[i'va biggen]

So if a terrorist does something stupid and kills some Americans we should retaliate against the country they came from? Stupid....if you go to Russia and set off a bomb they should nuke shawnee?

[Dawgs]

Originally Posted by ekim008

So if a terrorist does something stupid and kills some Americans we should retaliate against the country they came from? Stupid....if you go to Russia and set off a bomb they should nuke shawnee?

No, the proper response would be the same thing we originally gave Afghanistan.

Tho I agree with COG, it should have been a fully declared war.

Our current nukes are there as a deterent and hopefully will never be used.

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Here is what we SHOULD do in my opinion. If a country pisses us off by doing something war worthy, we send a crapload of bomber drones, flash bomb their military bases and capital buildings and leave. No repairs, no rebuilding, nothing. If they do it again we rinse, repeat. Eventually nobody fucks with us and it is as simple as that.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Dawgs

No, the proper response would be the same thing we originally gave Afghanistan.

Tho I agree with COG, it should have been a fully declared war.

Our current nukes are there as a deterent and hopefully will never be used.

even though 11 of the 15 terrorists were frm saudi, we should have had congress declare an all out war on Afghanistan


allllll righteeeee then.

[Dawgs]

In case you didn't realize it they were led and trained by a certain individual in Afganistan.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

even though 11 of the 15 terrorists were frm saudi, we should have had congress declare an all out war on Afghanistan


allllll righteeeee then.

You are a fucking moron, CBJ7. You give this same, fucking, flip response every time while knowing damn good and well that the individuals responsible for planning and implementing the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. resided in Afghanistan: not Saudi Arabia. As a matter of record, the U.S. similarly invaded Guadalcanal in WWII even though 100% of the Pearl Harbor attackers were from Japan!!!