Nuclear free world?

[myata]

I don't think anybody here has disputed the facts: that the US was the first country to develop, use, and build a large arsenal of, atomic weapons.

Justifications, speculations, and opinions are of course, different story.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't think anybody here has disputed the facts: that the US was the first country to develop, use, and build a large arsenal of, atomic weapons.

Justifications, speculations, and opinions are of course, different story.

You're not the one claiming Germans joined the Manhattan Project and then changed their names. Every major player in the Project is known...and probably even has a Wikipedia entry.

There are two questions I have for those interested in the morality/justification of America's use of atomic weapons.

1. Describe what happened starting with Guadalcanal and ending with Okinawa. What was the major common point in all these events?

2. During the period from 1947 to 1953, the Americans had a virtual monopoly on effective delivery systems (and the Bomb up until '49). Why didn't the US nuke Russia until it 'glowed'?

Edited April 9, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[myata]

The facts in question are listed above (1,2,3). I'm not sure how anything in here relate to them? You're certainly free to examine the syche of US military and government, why they didn't while they could? Maybe they didn't have enough bombs back then, who knows? These are all opinions, which are, as rightfully mentioned, just ain't the same as good old facts.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think anybody here has disputed the facts: that the US was the first country to develop, use, and build a large arsenal of, atomic weapons.

.....and it did so in partnership with other Allied nations and nationals. Canadian uranium would arm the nuclear west for many years to come, and still does.

Justifications, speculations, and opinions are of course, different story.

And all are inconsequential. The Americans made a policy decision after weapons development for reasons, not justification or approval by detractors with after-the-fact guilt. They also perfected controlled heavier-than-air flight (great for dropping bombs on people)....shame on them.

Edited April 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

.....and it did so in partnership with other Allied nations and nationals. Canadian uranium would arm the nuclear west for many years to come, and still does.

Accepted - partially (change underlined):

"that the US was the first country to develop, in cooperation with several allied nations, use, and build a large arsenal of, atomic weapons".

They also perfected controlled heavier-than-air flight (great for dropping bombs on people)....shame on them.

Of course we all understand the moral difference between making an instrument that could be used to kill (e.g a spade), and the one the sole of purpose of which is to kill (N-bomb). Not to mention the deliberate decision to actually use it, which caused deaths of thousands of innocent people.

[DogOnPorch]

The facts in question are listed above (1,2,3). I'm not sure how anything in here relate to them? You're certainly free to examine the syche of US military and government, why they didn't while they could? Maybe they didn't have enough bombs back then, who knows? These are all opinions, which are, as rightfully mentioned, just ain't the same as good old facts.

So...more or less...you're commenting on an issue that you have poor historical grounding and context. History is all related, right down to the smallest details.

Mark Steyn (again) ran across a group of anti-war protesters who went on about the war in the Middle-East...to which he replied..."What's the capital of Saudi Arabia?"

Nobody could answer...

[GostHacked]

Yeah..cause Oppenhiemer sounds sooo anglo saxon....no seriously your killing me....during the absolute most secret project of the war, you'r supposing a scientist named schmitt was truned to smith becasue of bad PR....did y9ou think maybe if even a smith was known working on the Mahatten project...the problem wouldn't be PR?

Don't you mean Bert Muggs?

I pose questions and you take it as fact and face value.

[M.Dancer]

I pose questions and you take it as fact and face value.

They were looney questions and I did take exactly at face value.

[GostHacked]

They were looney questions and I did take exactly at face value.

Good to know .. I am now bowing out of this thread.

[Wilber]

Up to this point nukes have been good, because of them we haven't had a war between major powers for 65 years and are unlikely to see another for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the more people who have them makes it more likely that one of them will turn out to be the wrong person.

Of course we all understand the moral difference between making an instrument that could be used to kill (e.g a spade), and the one the sole of purpose of which is to kill (N-bomb). Not to mention the deliberate decision to actually use it, which caused deaths of thousands of innocent people.

The sole purpose of most conventional weapons is to kill, why get hung up on nukes, it's only a difference in scale. Zyclon B was supposedly just an insecticide but it killed dozens of times more people than nuclear weapons during WW2. Of the 40 to 50 million who died in WW2, 80% of them were probably "innocent" people. Atomic weapons only accounted for a couple of hundred thousand and there is no way of knowing how many more "innocents" would have died if those weapons hadn't ended the war when they did. Far more Japanese died from conventional bombing than were killed by the two nuclear weapons.

[myata]

So...more or less...you're commenting on an issue that you have poor historical grounding and context. History is all related, right down to the smallest details.

Wow, what a well of wisdom! Of course, if all is related when S.Barper is the Roman Emperor and potato trees are growing on the Moon. And most certainly, fact is opinion, truth is lie, black is white, et cetera, yada, let's all have a learned, highly meaningful phylosophy discussion!

[DogOnPorch]

Wow, what a well of wisdom! Of course, if all is related when S.Barper is the Roman Emperor and potato trees are growing on the Moon. And most certainly, fact is opinion, truth is lie, black is white, et cetera, yada, let's all have a learned, highly meaningful phylosophy discussion!

Insult away. You're the one unaware of the War in the Pacific...Atomic Bombs...et al.

[myata]

Up to this point nukes have been good, because of them we haven't had a war between major powers for 65 years and are unlikely to see another for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the more people who have them makes it more likely that one of them will turn out to be the wrong person.

Yes I kind of agree with that, and it's a very sad reflection of the current state of humanity. Only the threat of total annihilation of everybody on the planet can keep us from squabbling and fighting (and when there isn't such threat, nothing can? Certainly not "the law" or "justice" or "peacefulness").

[Wilber]

Yes I kind of agree with that, and it's a very sad reflection of the current state of humanity. Only the threat of total annihilation of everybody on the planet can keep us from squabbling and fighting (and when there isn't such threat, nothing can? Certainly not "the law" or "justice" or "peacefulness").

It's always been the state of humanity. The only thing that keeps a kid from picking on a smaller sibling is the threat presented by a much stronger force in the person of a parent. Perhaps it took the physical demonstration of those weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to drive home how terrifying these weapons really are and discourage their use in future.

[myata]

Yeah I understand that generous "for greater good", "for your own best" notion, but personally will try to stay away from it, where I see, and while I could.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course we all understand the moral difference between making an instrument that could be used to kill (e.g a spade), and the one the sole of purpose of which is to kill (N-bomb). Not to mention the deliberate decision to actually use it, which caused deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Of course....this is the nub of the matter that you have danced around thus far, finding an illogical disassociation from other mainstream methods that killed then and will kill far more "innocent people" in the future. Wars kill people...moralizing war and how they get killed is academic at best.

This B-52 with munitions suite (non-nuclear) must be A-OK in your book, eh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...lay_arms_06.jpg

Edited April 10, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

Certainly not A-OK, but these are far more powerful weapons, and they were brought in primarily for the purpose of gaining more power. As an ape would always want to make a bigger stick, to impress the neighbour and maybe grab their food / place / females. So little has changed, really. So, now we're in the same stalemate, as after the WWII, but with some 0,000, if not hundreds of nukes stuck around globe. And there wil be more, eventually. Every aspiring regional player (global already have them) will want them, eventually. As a matter of status. Give it some time. Call it a smart move, for all you like.

[Wilber]

Certainly not A-OK, but these are far more powerful weapons, and they were brought in primarily for the purpose of gaining more power. As an ape would always want to make a bigger stick, to impress the neighbour and maybe grab their food / place / females. So little has changed, really. So, now we're in the same stalemate, as after the WWII, but with some 0,000, if not hundreds of nukes stuck around globe. And there wil be more, eventually. Every aspiring regional player (global already have them) will want them, eventually. As a matter of status. Give it some time. Call it a smart move, for all you like.

Stalemate is good but the genie is out of the box and no amount of wishing in the world will put it back. The only thing that is important is who controls the genie. So far there has been no nuclear war involving the present players and the chances of there being between them is very remote. For all our sakes, let's try and keep it that way. It depends what kind of status you are after. Do you think Canada's status in the world suffers because it has decided not to possess nuclear arms? After all, what could we do with them except get wiped out by a country which possesses far more? Because they exist, we need reliable stable countries to have the biggest stick whatever that stick may be, in order to keep those who are less reliable and stable in check.

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly not A-OK, but these are far more powerful weapons, and they were brought in primarily for the purpose of gaining more power. As an ape would always want to make a bigger stick, to impress the neighbour and maybe grab their food / place / females. So little has changed, really.

Why would you have any expectation otherwise? We are apes....with calculators.

So, now we're in the same stalemate, as after the WWII, but with some 0,000, if not hundreds of nukes stuck around globe. And there wil be more, eventually. Every aspiring regional player (global already have them) will want them, eventually. As a matter of status. Give it some time. Call it a smart move, for all you like.

There are actually far fewer nuclear weapons in the world because the apes can also decide on such things. See SALT and START treaties.

[DogOnPorch]

Why would you have any expectation otherwise? We are apes....with calculators.

There are actually far fewer nuclear weapons in the world because the apes can also decide on such things. See SALT and START treaties.

Actual knowledge re: nuclear weapons is optional to many.

[myata]

There are actually far fewer nuclear weapons in the world because the apes can also decide on such things. See SALT and START treaties.

Still some 20,000 (plus unknown to me number of "decomissioned" ones that can be reverted to active duty, or lost): Wikipedia: nukes.

In any case, any effort aimed at reducing the number is laudable, as long as it begins with the chief players (Russia: 8,000; US: 5,000) rather than fringe scapegoats.

[DogOnPorch]

Wikipedia: nukes

'Bout time...lol.

[Wilber]

Still some 20,000 (plus unknown to me number of "decomissioned" ones that can be reverted to active duty, or lost): Wikipedia: nukes.

In any case, any effort aimed at reducing the number is laudable, as long as it begins with the chief players (Russia: 8,000; US: 5,000) rather than fringe scapegoats.

Unfortunately it is the "fringe scapegoats" who present the threat. How much more secure we all are now that Pakistan has nukes, can't wait till North Korea and Iran have them as well. Those thousands of nukes possessed by the US and Russia (don't forget the UK and France also have nuclear arsenals and the capability to deliver them anywhere in the world) have maintained a balance of power that has ensured peace between major powers since WW2. After the Napoleonic wars, there was relative peace in the world until the two World Wars occurred during the period between Pax Britannia and Pax Americana. In other words, when there was no one with a stick big enough to keep the naughty kids in line. Teddy Roosevelt was right, big sticks are important.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In any case, any effort aimed at reducing the number is laudable, as long as it begins with the chief players (Russia: 8,000; US: 5,000) rather than fringe scapegoats.

The effort did begin (long ago) with the "chief players", and continues to this day. The risk is correctly focused on proliferation and unstable governments or actors possessing nuclear weapons, not because of the puny kiloton risk they represent, but because of the likely ramifications of counterstrikes and alliances.

Many Canadians don't even realize that nuclear weapons were deployed in country as late as 1984.

[tango]

n their London talks, Obama and Medvedev launched a milestone quest to slash their nuclear arsenals, hoping to reverse the worst slump in the former foes' ties since the end of the Cold War.

The pair also discussed thorny issues including NATO's eastwards expansion, long opposed by Moscow which sees it as a power-grab by the West's former Cold War-era military bloc into former Soviet territory.

"Yesterday I spoke about this with my new comrade President Barack Obama," Medvedev said.

They also discussed U.S. plans for a missile defence shield, based in former communist-bloc countries which are now members of NATO and the European Union, like the Czech Republic.

Again, Medvedev was complimentary.

"Today from the United States there is at least a desire to listen to our arguments," he said, adding that:

"Such defence measures should be carried out jointly" between Washington and Moscow.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Obama+get...0033/story.html

I think this is quite encouraging.