Thoughts: Use of Nuclear Bombs

[August1991]

Truman dropped not one, two.

Apparently Truman wanted to shorten the war, avoid an invasion of Japan.

Beforehand, Truman told Stalin about all this in their meeting near Berlin.

====

Truman?

What if Stalin or Hitler had had the power of Truman?

[August1991]

Key point:

We need a new way to get along.

[herbie]

Then think of it this way.
We haven't had a total bloody all out war between major powers in the 80 years since. And the game has moved on to Economics. Not how many you can kill or land you can grab, how much money you can bleed from the other guy.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Human race is corrupt. They spend far more on killing tools than research to better the lives of fellow humans. Millionaires keeping all the millions to themselves while many children sleep hungry.  Some have vacant rooms in their big homes while many are homeless. The top 1% owning over 90% of the wealth or resources on the planet. 

To answer your question if Hitler had the bomb he would have used it definitely on London, Moscow and Saint Petersburg and possibly on Washington too if US stayed in the war. If Stalin had it he would have used it on Berlin. 

Edited December 24, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Human race is corrupt.  

An opinion. A defensible opinion, but it's easy to attack it. 

I just read a pretty good book called Enlightenment now! By Steven Pinker.  He makes a convincing case that science, humanism and reason have improved the lives of human beings globally beyond a doubt. 

Given the coming advances in medicine, communication, robotics and energy and, I would argue, depopulation we will probably see a paradigm shift this century that will see these benefits trickle down to the global village very evenly.

[CITIZEN_2015]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

An opinion. A defensible opinion, but it's easy to attack it. 

I just read a pretty good book called Enlightenment now! By Steven Pinker.  He makes a convincing case that science, humanism and reason have improved the lives of human beings globally beyond a doubt. 

Given the coming advances in medicine, communication, robotics and energy and, I would argue, depopulation we will probably see a paradigm shift this century that will see these benefits trickle down to the global village very evenly.

I don't disagree that humanity is improving (becoming less brutal as time passes). Compare 70 years ago with now. Europe in flames. Mass murder of civilians on a large scale in Europe. Dictatorships all over the world in 90% of population lived under dictatorships. Massacre in India, Pakistan, Africa, South Central America  by military regimes. Now we have a few dictatorships remaining the worst of which was Assad and is Islamic Republic of Iran. and Russia's Putin and North Korea They will come to an end too. Human race as it stands is pretty corrupt though for reasons I stated. 

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

 Human race as it stands is pretty corrupt though for reasons I stated. 

I find it hard to reconcile this with the acceptance of our improved humanity, since humans are responsible.

[CITIZEN_2015]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I find it hard to reconcile this with the acceptance of our improved humanity, since humans are responsible.

It is. I am saying yes human race has improved a lot past 100 years but it is still corrupt for the reasons I stated. We will however, reach a date that human race has evolved enough to stop materialism, concur all diseases and overcome poverty and stop killing animals and eating their flesh and the day that all types of murder, theft and fraud would end and all those will be achieved without the help of any religion. I estimate that date to be between 500 to 1000 years from now.

[August1991]

On 12/22/2024 at 11:38 PM, herbie said:

Then think of it this way.
We haven't had a total bloody all out war between major powers in the 80 years since.

....

This is my thinking too.

Mearsheimer (and Nixon, Trudeau Snr) think this way also.

[Dougie93]

On 12/22/2024 at 10:58 PM, August1991 said:

Truman dropped not one, two.

Apparently Truman wanted to shorten the war, avoid an invasion of Japan.

Beforehand, Truman told Stalin about all this in their meeting near Berlin.

====

Truman?

What if Stalin or Hitler had had the power of Truman?

it wasn't the atomic bombs which incited the Japanese surrender

in fact, when the Japanese high command was told about the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

they basically just shrugged ; so what ?

since Japan had already been firebombed into the stone age with conventional incendiaries

( the conventional bombing of Tokyo inflicting more damage than both atomic bombs combined )

and the atomic bomb was really just another type of firebomb ; it made no significant difference

the real reason the Japanese high command was holding out

was that they hoped to make a deal with the Soviets separate from the Americans

because the great fear of the Japanese was to be occupied by the Soviets

when they found out that Stalin was not willing to make a deal, instead the Soviets were going to invade Japan

only then did the Japanese high command decide to surrender to the Americans as the preferred occupiers

so Stalin did in fact have the power

since the fear of Stalin ultimately trumped the fear of American firebombing, even if atomic

Edited December 26, 2024 by Dougie93

[August1991]

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it wasn't the atomic bombs which incited the Japanese surrender

in fact, when the Japanese high command was told about the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

they basically just shrugged ; so what ?

since Japan had already been firebombed into the stone age with conventional incendiaries

( the conventional bombing of Tokyo inflicting more damage than both atomic bombs combined )

....

Disagree.

[August1991]

At issue is when the next dictator/psychopath will use a nuclear bomb?

Would Napoleon use an H-bomb?

Hitler?

[Dougie93]

17 hours ago, August1991 said:

Disagree.

it's a statistical fact

Tokyo firebombing was 160,000 casualties

Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined was 150,000 casualties

America had been firebombing cities in Japan for six months by then

it wasn't the reason that Japan surrendered

again, the Japanese high command held out faint hope of splitting the Allies by making a deal with the Soviets

when that didn't work,

the Japanese then chose to surrender to the Americans rather than be invaded by the Russians

[Army Guy]

On 12/24/2024 at 8:46 AM, Michael Hardner said:

An opinion. A defensible opinion, but it's easy to attack it. 

I just read a pretty good book called Enlightenment now! By Steven Pinker.  He makes a convincing case that science, humanism and reason have improved the lives of human beings globally beyond a doubt. 

Given the coming advances in medicine, communication, robotics and energy and, I would argue, depopulation we will probably see a paradigm shift this century that will see these benefits trickle down to the global village very evenly.

And much easier to defend...

Considering most advances in most tech trees have been due to conflict, and still today conflict is what is driving our key advances in any field. we continue to improve on ways to kill each other, how does that make the human race not corrupt ? while we still struggle with major diseases such as cancer etc...that could be solved or cured if trillions were thrown into the research. 

Advances in robotics is going to remove soldiers from the battlefields, and force warfare in many different directions, which will in my opinion will only prolong conflicts...

[August1991]

On 12/27/2024 at 2:56 PM, Dougie93 said:

it's a statistical fact

Tokyo firebombing was 160,000 casualties

Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined was 150,000 casualties,

....

Mises point.

[August1991]

On 12/31/2024 at 11:53 AM, Army Guy said:

And much easier to defend...

Considering most advances in most tech trees have been due to conflict, and still today conflict is what is driving our key advances in any field. we continue to improve on ways to kill each other, ...

Agreed.

=====

But what happens when the next Hitler/Napoleon/Psychopath takes power and invades Russia?

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, August1991 said:

But what happens when the next Hitler/Napoleon/Psychopath takes power and invades Russia?

What about the psychopath running Russia at the moment? Power to anyone who invades Russia I say.

Patton was right.

[August1991]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about the psychopath running Russia at the moment? Power to anyone who invades Russia I say.

Patton was right.

As John Cleese says, Americans have no understanding of irony.

I'm Canadian: Americans lack self-awareness.

==

I can see myself on a stage, in a theatre. Other people looking at me. Americans cannot.

Edited January 18, 2025 by August1991

[August1991]

In the 1990s (Bush/Clinton), post-Soviet Nixon/Reagan won.

At present - since 2010s or so, we live in a multi-polar world.

[August1991]

Since the Thirty Years War in the 1600s, Europeans have fought each other - at least, once the grand-parents have forgotten.

We Canadians get along.

[eyeball]

Thoughts: Use of Nuclear Bombs

It would almost certainly cool a feverish world down. 

[August1991]

On 1/30/2025 at 1:05 AM, eyeball said:

Thoughts: Use of Nuclear Bombs

It would almost certainly cool a feverish world down. 

That is the real poliitic Mearscheimer view.

But what if a megalomane/sociopath such as Napoleon/Hitler gets hold of a nuclear weapon?

In the 1800s, Napoleon thought that he was changing the world.

 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

But what if a megalomane/sociopath such as Napoleon/Hitler gets hold of a nuclear weapon?

Nuclear winter...it's a matter of when not if.

 

From where I'm sitting most of the world's leaders are already megalomaniac sociopaths. Governing turns them into these not the other way around.

People who are governed need to be more assertive and develop a collective megalomania of sorts that brooks little sympathy for how governments feel about accountability.

Mearscheimer's given up hope.

[August1991]

On 1/31/2025 at 12:45 PM, eyeball said:

Nuclear winter...it's a matter of when not if.

 

From where I'm sitting most of the world's leaders are already megalomaniac sociopaths. Governing turns them into these not the other way around.

People who are governed need to be more assertive and develop a collective megalomania of sorts that brooks little sympathy for how governments feel about accountability.

Mearscheimer's given up hope.

Mearscheimer's view is that a State is like a single person.

He views the world as a few persons (gangsters) facing one another.

=====

I view the world differently. I see the world as gazillions of people.