Why use the atomic bomb on Japan?

[TheVat]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

If the taking of lives is immoral, Taking them to save economy and culture are also.
I, and I'm sure many others ( even MSC ) don't consider taking the life of someone who is threatening the life of others, immoral.

I think this is where a misunderstanding arose, as the discussion shifted away somewhat from the OP.  I take your and @toucana point as to where the thread started, so I didn't make clear that I thought the thread had moved a bit and was trying to follow that.

My point goes to the substantial difference (especially re the fate of Earth's supporting ecosystems) between any nuclear exchange and all the other historical forms of massive death you described.  I won't rehash that, but anyone who wants to review previous posts is welcome to.  I agree there is a legitimate moment of self-defense in a war, but I tried (and failed) to make some points as to how a nuclear "defense" can ultimately kill so many people who are not attacking.  Therein lies the problem of proportionality, as well as Geneva issues, plus the migration of radionuclides and weather effects to friendly nations,  also addressed by me and others.  Again, I didn't communicate well that I see this as more than just a form of the Trolley Problem, because of the unique implications of annihilating an entire (or several entire) cities (and what that opens up, in terms of a larger war).  We don't have to explore them here.  I gave it a shot, but will  step aside so others can resume with the original question.   

 

Edited April 29 by TheVat

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

Not a strong analogy.  No one is proposing uninvention - an absurd concept.  With guns, as with nukes, many propose a ban.  The point is not having a gun pointed at everyone's head because it nurtures life and happiness and freedom from chronic fear.  These are goals of civilization, or so I've heard.  Erasure of knowledge would be a terrible idea - we absolutely need to remember what these weapons are and what they can do. 

Not my analog, my point being that while the knowledge is out there, no one is going to throw away the ability to wield even if it has to be a secret.

The gun analog is delt with by game theory, which is not applicable here.

 

[MSC]

On 4/27/2024 at 9:40 PM, MigL said:

think we can all agree that killing is immoral.

I don't follow the reasoning where killing a few is more moral than killing many.
And if so, how many ?

And I find it strange that you think someone like President H Truman shouldn't value 100 000 American lives more than 100 000 enemy combatants.
That is his job; to defend people he cares about.

Oh, and I got 'pissy' like this because MSC commented about my morality, or lack thereof, not to simply be provocative.

I was sure what I said earlier or at least what I meant is that the sentiment behind how you chose to phrase some things, betrayed your spoken views on the matter, by which I meant that although you are arguing for a view I find morally questionable (that on some level using nuclear weapons as a last resort is permissable to you, which is your view and I respect it) emotionally you do understand that whether I agree with it or not, you don't feel you'd be capable of giving the order to use nukes and would rather opt to be able to sleep at night. So to be clear; I do not think you are an immoral or an unethical person, far from it(I mean we all have moral blindspots but who's to say what mine and yours are?). I know that although we disagree on the permissability of Nuclear weapons, you are still someone who believes they are a last resort which I think is the middle ground we are all forced to share anyway. If it was down to you, I believe you'd have tried other options at least longer than Truman did which is good enough for me.

I got pissy too and I apologise. Really this thread could have gone in either the ethics or politics thread but honestly ethics, law and politics have near seamless interdisciplinary overlap and are always going to inflame tempers eventually. Despite the differences, I think we have all done pretty well keeping as cool a head as it is possible to have when you discuss this stuff as long as we've been at this one. 

I'm sorry for not being clearer before MigL, hurting your feelings or suggesting you lacked morality was not my intent at all. I appreciated your engagement with my blackhole thread also.

Oh and you made a mistake when you said we can all agree killing is immoral. No we can't lol I don't with that but that's another thread and tbh you'd probably just end up calling it a question of semantics once I explain. 

On 4/28/2024 at 11:14 AM, MigL said:

President H Truman was trying to save American lives.

Well lives were saved and his intentions and motivations were many. 

Did he save them in the best way? I doubt it. It was one large set of lives for another large set of lives but you are right, the American Presidents job is to favour his citizens lives over others. 

There is one thing however, in terms of deterrent to use nuclear weapons. Besides mutually assured destruction, there is one other deterrent that I feel is a powerful factor we need to consider. Public moral condemnation. Should we consider the decision makers who decide to use nuclear weapons war heroes? Or are they failures opting for a pyyhric victory? Is their future condemnation as murderers, not a key part of how the public deters it's leaders from taking actions it finds barbaric by using nuclear weapons or even building them or blackmailing with them?

 

[MSC]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not my analog, my point being that while the knowledge is out there, no one is going to throw away the ability to wield even if it has to be a secret.

The gun analog is delt with by game theory, which is not applicable here.

Firstly; game theory is applicable anywhere you find language being used. 

Obsolescence is actually the main reason humans will give up a technology... in fact that seems to be the only reason. I have researched and researched and have not found any historical example of a technology we are both reasonably certain existed, didn't just lose the blueprints of etc, and actively gave up. One potential exception is flexible Roman glass, the inventor of which was apparently executed so as not to devalue the gold and silver industries. Don't know how true that story is. 

However, humans have in the past given up something that in some ways only gave them power while giving some very obvious national security issues and issues of morality. Slavery. We also gave it up at the cost of an entire industry that in today's money would be worth billions. 

In terms of there being a massive harm and the risk of national self harm involved; Slavery and using nuclear weapons could be compared to some extent. Dammit. There was me hoping to avoid Hegels Master and slave dialectic. 

Rounding back to what I said earlier about obsolescence. I feel that a direction public opinion could steer militaries to go; is the obsolescence of nuclear weapons through the technological advancement of precision in war over destructive power. Lets give the military eggheads a very small pat on the back for the whole scientific achievement of maximising destructive capabilities. Knocked that one out of the park, next challenge. Can you make a small bomb that can fly up a generals nose?

Maybe the global zero initiative should open up two fronts instead of just one. Make it a forced military standard to reach as close to global zero civilian/non combatant deaths in war as is possible.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Firstly; game theory is applicable anywhere you find language being used. 

That's not true, at all, especially in this context; it only really work's in the traditional Mexican stand off, where each player knows the other player's only have one bullet each and it only work's for the first player to throw away the gun, even the suspicion that one of the other player's has more than one bullet, invalidates the throw away your gun theory.

And if there's four player's the advantage would go to the player, who shot the player who was first to throw away the gun. 😉 After that, it gets a little complicated. 

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Obsolescence is actually the main reason humans will give up a technology...

That's certainly true of the musket, in this context, after that it gets a little complicated... 😉

Edited April 30 by dimreepr

[MigL]

20 hours ago, MSC said:

I'm sorry for not being clearer before MigL, hurting your feelings or suggesting you lacked morality was not my intent at all.

No feelings were hurt, and no need for apologies.
I was in a 'mood' that day, for other reasons.

Sometimes I get into a funk thinking I've outlived my usefulness in this forum, but I never feel bad about things said on an on-line forum.
You guys aren't real, just imaginary anyway, right ?

[dimreepr]

We still have (by which I mean some of us) a viable small pox virus, can't think why we'd keep that around?Just hoarders I guess...  

[geordief]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

No feelings were hurt, and no need for apologies.
I was in a 'mood' that day, for other reasons.

Sometimes I get into a funk thinking I've outlived my usefulness in this forum, but I never feel bad about things said on an on-line forum.
You guys aren't real, just imaginary anyway, right ?

A friend of mine was scammed by someone pretending to be from Revolut.

First they sent her a text pretending  to be from her electricity company  with a link  (that she foolishly followed) to  a fake website and how she might avoid being disconnected by updating her account.

They followed this up with a   call from a man claiming to be from  the online Bank  Revolut  affecting concern that there had been activity on her account and offering his help to recover the cash from the apparent scammers.

He got her to authorize payments in the supposed aim of  recovering the supposed money that had been withdrawn.

Half way through she started to wonder "who is real here?"

She lost some   and saved some.

A lot of money,people

 

Edited April 30 by geordief

[MigL]

Viruses are kept around to study and develop vaccines and outbreak mitigation methods.

Even if you get rid of all smallpox virus, there is no reason why a member of that strain couldn't mutate into something even more virulent than smallpox.

Hope for the best, but be ready for the worst; IOW be prepared.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Viruses are kept around to study and develop vaccines and outbreak mitigation methods.

Even if you get rid of all smallpox virus, there is no reason why a member of that strain couldn't mutate into something even more virulent than smallpox.

Hope for the best, but be ready for the worst; IOW be prepared.

Indeed, my point exactly. 😉

IOW it's an impossible dream, so why even worry about that way of being dead?

[MSC]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's not true, at all, especially in this context

Wittgenstein. That's my response. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's certainly true of the musket, in this context, after that it gets a little complicated... 😉

Haha wait until you read my science fiction book!

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Even if you get rid of all smallpox virus, there is no reason why a member of that strain couldn't mutate into something even more virulent than smallpox.

Nor can you discount the fact that virus cell composition can mutate randomly. Something doesn't have to be smallpox to evolve into something like smallpox. We are kind of getting OTT but since we've now talked about medicine, Nuclear medicine and nuclear energy are things I'd like to keep around. Nuclear weapons have been built but ethical recycling to reduce the amount of active warheads I think is a reasonable goal. I think the most pragmatic goal of Global Zero is reduction. 

I think we'd all agree that it would be preferable if cumulatively world governments never have enough nukes to really fuck things up for the entire planet that would be a little bit easier to tolerate than a status quo which has many governments having a big enough stockpile to blow the absolute crap out of the planet. 

I also feel like there have to be some kind of limits on where militaries are allowed to target in nuclear defense policies and plans. Some parts of the planet are much more fragile than others. A nuke in yellowstone or along the San Andreas fault being places that come to mind. 

It puts a bad taste in my mouth to have to argue for anything less than total denuclearization but baby steps. Total denuclearization is beyond my lifetime if ever.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

IOW it's an impossible dream, so why even worry about that way of being dead?

I'm a parent so my drive is doing what I can to reduce the amount of ways my daughter could be dead before she is old and grey. Probably not even a drive I can fight because it's my job to follow that drive. Responsibility, duty and all that jazz. The biological categorical imperative!

And hey, if the best I can do is arm my daughter with all the best arguments as to why you shouldnt nuke her or anyone else, then that's the best I can do. If I am part of a colletive movement that sees at least one active nuclear warhead taken out of the count, that's even better. At the very least I'll cover my ass because if y'all mfs make anymore nuclear weapons it had nothing to do with me! Got it? Wasn't here. Didn't see it. Said no. Walked away.

Also this detterent thing better pay off in the longrun or I will be doing the biggest I told you so of all time. If I live. I hope to be wrong. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

think we'd all agree that it would be preferable if cumulatively world governments never have enough nukes to really fuck things up for the entire planet that would be a little bit easier to tolerate than a status quo which has many governments having a big enough stockpile to blow the absolute crap out of the planet. 

This does seem the practical goal.  Reminds me of comedian Chris Rock's idea for gun control - anyone can have all the guns they want, but a bullet costs 10,000 US$.  Anyway, if half dozen nations each have one expensive "bullet," aimed at the capital of their principal foe, then we would be closer to taking the planet out of jeopardy.  Deterrence would still reign, given that we need our DC, UK needs its London, Russia its Moscow, etc.  Of course, it could still feel "Damoclean" for residents of those great cities.  

[MigL]

4 hours ago, MSC said:

I also feel like there have to be some kind of limits on where militaries are allowed to target in nuclear defense policies and plans.

You're preaching to the choir.
I suggest you fly to Moscow and tell Vlad to stop targeting the reactor in Zaporizhzhia, and the containment in Chernobyl with missiles, shells and bombs.

Oh wait ... I forgot, some people don't follow the rules.
Remember what Batman said
"My parents taught me a different lesson ... dying for no reason at all.
They showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to."

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, MSC said:

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's not true, at all, especially in this context

Wittgenstein. That's my response. 

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's certainly true of the musket, in this context, after that it gets a little complicated... 😉

Haha wait until you read my science fiction book!

None of that explains anything, what exactly do you think is wrong with my logic?

13 hours ago, MSC said:

I'm a parent so my drive is doing what I can to reduce the amount of ways my daughter could be dead before she is old and grey. Probably not even a drive I can fight because it's my job to follow that drive. Responsibility, duty and all that jazz. The biological categorical imperative!

And we circle back to the post of mine you negged, what makes you think this issue would crack the top twenty of legitimate threats to your daughters mortality (that you can do something to affect)?

You might think it's a laudable objective, but so is a cure for everything, a more laudable one is to come up with a perfect shield that is shared with the world, bc that is more achievable.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

He hasn't yet, that should tell us something about the reason for his propaganda, it strengthens his apparent resolve and ability in the eyes of his enemies; he doesn't give a shit about 'his' people.

Edited May 1 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

He hasn't yet, that should tell us something about the reason for his propaganda, it strengthens his apparent resolve and ability in the eyes of his enemies; he doesn't give a shit about 'his' people.

Unfortunately to the extent that's true...what seems a deterrent is more of an illusion of one.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately to the extent that's true...what seems a deterrent is more of an illusion of one.

Indeed, it depends on the context, but let's be honest, there's fook all we can do to stop his finger; the illusion is his ability to win...

[MSC]

On 5/1/2024 at 7:00 AM, dimreepr said:

And we circle back to the post of mine you negged, what makes you think this issue would crack the top twenty of legitimate threats to your daughters mortality (that you can do something to affect)?

How do you know it was me who negged it? Neg one of mine, I don't really care about that. 

It's in the top ten long-term threats. Short term yeah sure, not a big threat. I'm talking about this issue because that's what this thread is about. I can go just as long debating other issues where they are relavent and threats to mortality as they are brought up. Just don't expect the same level of substantive answers in this discussion to show up in a discussion about cutting hot dogs laterally into long strips instead of small perfectly air pip sized cylinders to avoid choking hazards for young children. It's not the same. If I just randomly spout up about other threats to my loved ones unrelated to warfare or nuckear equatable disasters, then I'm off topic breaking the rules. Why does this need repeatedly explained Dim? If you don't want to take part in the discussion or think it is pointless, then why chime in at all?

This is a forum, whining about people talking about what is brought up, where it is brought up, in line with rules about being on topic, that's the real conversation not worth having that is a waste of your time and mine. 

[CharonY]

Posted in wrong forum, please disregard.

 

[MigL]

There are two factors associated with risk analysis.
One involves the severity of the occurrence, the other is the probability of occurrence.

Consider a city.
There are numerous sidewalks with litter on them, and only one sidewalk with a 20 ft deep hole.
The probability of tripping on litter is very high because there is so much of it, but the severity is very low, maybe a twisted ankle or scrapped knee.
The probability of falling in the hole is very low, as there is only one, but the severity is extremely high, resulting in death.

I think Dimreepr and MSC are each focusing on only one aspect of risk analysis.
Dim is focused on the improbability of a nuclear exchange, with respect to the much higher probabilities of other death producing incidents; after all, none have happened for 70 years.
MSC is concerned about the severity of a nuclear exchange, that could destroy our way of life, and disregarding the probability of it occurring.

Think you guys can cut each other some slack 🙂 ?

[MSC]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

think Dimreepr and MSC are each focusing on only one aspect of risk analysis.
Dim is focused on the improbability of a nuclear exchange, with respect to the much higher probabilities of other death producing incidents; after all, none have happened for 70 years.
MSC is concerned about the severity of a nuclear exchange, that could destroy our way of life, and disregarding the probability of it occurring.

Think you guys can cut each other some slack 🙂 

When put like that; yes. Slack given. Well put. Not complete disregard though. 90 seconds to midnight spurs things for me. It wouldn't surprise me if the next recalculation puts us at 1 minute to midnight or closer what with the war in Ukraine still raging and Iran and Israel rattling nuclear sabers more now too. 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, MSC said:

How do you know it was me who negged it? Neg one of mine, I don't really care about that. 

I don't, it was an assumption; which is cogent to the topic.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

There are two factors associated with risk analysis.
One involves the severity of the occurrence, the other is the probability of occurrence.

Consider a city.
There are numerous sidewalks with litter on them, and only one sidewalk with a 20 ft deep hole.
The probability of tripping on litter is very high because there is so much of it, but the severity is very low, maybe a twisted ankle or scrapped knee.
The probability of falling in the hole is very low, as there is only one, but the severity is extremely high, resulting in death.

I think Dimreepr and MSC are each focusing on only one aspect of risk analysis.
Dim is focused on the improbability of a nuclear exchange, with respect to the much higher probabilities of other death producing incidents; after all, none have happened for 70 years.
MSC is concerned about the severity of a nuclear exchange, that could destroy our way of life, and disregarding the probability of it occurring.

Think you guys can cut each other some slack 🙂 ?

Now where's the fun in that? 🧐

15 hours ago, MSC said:

It's in the top ten long-term threats. Short term yeah sure, not a big threat. I'm talking about this issue because that's what this thread is about. I can go just as long debating other issues where they are relavent and threats to mortality as they are brought up. Just don't expect the same level of substantive answers in this discussion to show up in a discussion about cutting hot dogs laterally into long strips instead of small perfectly air pip sized cylinders to avoid choking hazards for young children. It's not the same. If I just randomly spout up about other threats to my loved ones unrelated to warfare or nuckear equatable disasters, then I'm off topic breaking the rules. Why does this need repeatedly explained Dim? If you don't want to take part in the discussion or think it is pointless, then why chime in at all?

Bolded mine, is it though?

This world has been walking a tightrope of disaster, since the revolution that produced a nuclear weapon, which, at best, is a tangential threat; bc there's absolutely nothing you or I can do, to stop the fuckwit that actually pressed the button, and it's not something we can change, unlike the less obvious potential disaster's...

[MSC]

On 5/6/2024 at 7:12 AM, dimreepr said:

unlike the less obvious potential disaster's...

Lets diverge a thread into why putting weed killer on dandelions and not keeping bees yourself is a moral blindspot off most peoples radar. Famines incoming. Buy bees, keep bees, do everything in your power to support bees, even if you're vegan because they pollinate your diet. There, I'm OT now lol happy now Dim? I've gone into a topic where individual action would have an impact. 

Edited May 7 by MSC
Spelling.

[dimreepr]

58 minutes ago, MSC said:

Lets diverge a thread into why putting weed killer on dandelions and not keeping bees yourself is a moral blindspot off most peoples radar. Famines incoming. Buy bees, keep bees, do everything in your power to support bees, even if you're vegan because they pollinate your diet. There, I'm OT now lol happy now Dim? I've gone into a topic where individual action would have an impact. 

I'm just happy that my locus of control is mine to influence, I don't care what you do with yours... 😉

Hmm, another neg for a reasonable post; it's getting difficult to not assume...

[MSC]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm just happy that my locus of control is mine to influence, I don't care what you do with yours... 😉

Hmm, another neg for a reasonable post; it's getting difficult to not assume...

Genuinely not me this time. Will make it -2 now by way of proving the first isn't me. 

Just buy bees Dim. Be a bee keeper. Don't buy weapons grade nuclear material.