dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Since they’re only purpose is revenge, why do we need so many? Edited August 9, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I thought the idea was as a deterrent. Who knowns what Putin may do if we did not have them? That said, nuclear weapons seem not to be effective against terrorists and ISIS. But then has anyone threatened to remove Mecca from the Earth if they don't stop? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 They only work as a deterrent because of the revenge factor. I'm not suggesting we can, at present, eliminate all such weapons but surely there’s room to reduce the numbers by at least a factor of ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Since the "revenge" idea only works if there is overwhelming force (i.e. "Even if you knock out 90% of our missiles we will still be able to reduce the whole of your country to glowing wasteland") you do (bizarrely) need a stupid number of the things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danijel Gorupec Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Was I just a witness to a purely emotional response by ajb? I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Since they’re only purpose is revenge, why do we need so many? Who said their only purpose is revenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 If only a single weapon existed whomever had it would always be in a powerful bargaining position. Many having many reduces the leverage and forces other considerations. Basically in a world where even one exists there is a need for many to exist. At least that is the argument. There is no point in having something you can never use simply so you can threaten to use it. Nuclear weapons can not be used to save any countries way of life. If ever the day comes that nuclear weapons are launched clearly the society launching them will have all ready collasped, failed, or been destoryed. They are an example of how cynical humans are. They stand as a selfish charge that "if I go we all go". They encourage leaders to pretend they are crazy enough to use them. Or worse, they provide leaders who aren't prentend a politically functional platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Who said their only purpose is revenge? Only me as far as I know. Admittedly the original design was not due to revenge but a sincere need to beat the enemy to it. Why was it used on a city rather than a military base? And whilst a dubious argument could be made for the first drop I can think of no other reason to drop the 2nd on a city rather than a military target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Only me as far as I know. Admittedly the original design was not due to revenge but a sincere need to beat the enemy to it. Why was it used on a city rather than a military base? And whilst a dubious argument could be made for the first drop I can think of no other reason to drop the 2nd on a city rather than a military target. "In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman." "(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs," Truman continued. "So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America." http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911103&slug=1314805 I don't think Turman and various others during his time cared too much about whether or not the Japenese people killed were combatants or not. Anti Japanese atitudes and outright racism were a very real thing at the time and played a much bigger role in the decision making process that most today admit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Only me as far as I know. Admittedly the original design was not due to revenge but a sincere need to beat the enemy to it. Why was it used on a city rather than a military base? And whilst a dubious argument could be made for the first drop I can think of no other reason to drop the 2nd on a city rather than a military target. A city is a military target; ask the people in London or Dresden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) A city is a military target; ask the people in London or Dresden. London and Dresden seem, to me at least, to be pseudo-military targets in the absence of a decisive way to strike real military targets but when you have a weapon like a nuke any target is just a way to demonstrate its power. Edited August 9, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Only me as far as I know. Admittedly the original design was not due to revenge but a sincere need to beat the enemy to it. Why was it used on a city rather than a military base? And whilst a dubious argument could be made for the first drop I can think of no other reason to drop the 2nd on a city rather than a military target. Hiroshima was a military target: By the end of the war, most of Japan's major cities had been destroyed by U.S. air attacks. Hiroshima was still intact. The reasons Hiroshima was chosen as the target for the A-bombing are assumed to be the following.[/size] The size and the shape of the city was suited to the destructive power of the A-bombs. Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, ascertaining the effects of the A-bomb would be relatively easy. Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage. http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e12.html Same for Nagasaki: The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp6.shtml Edited August 9, 2015 by zapatos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Hiroshima was a military target: http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e12.html And Nagasaki? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 And Nagasaki?Same. I edited my last post before seeing this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I doubt the people affected were greatly concerned that their deaths were as part of a military target or as a way for the military to demonstrate their power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Same. I edited my last post before seeing this question. But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2nd was to demonstrate that the 1st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told? Edited August 9, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Part of the answer is that the Japanese authorities tied to pretend that the first bomb hadn't happened. If the second bomb fell in unoccupied forest then that would have been much easier to "hush up". (I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same thing as the Japanese govt did- I don't blame them, but it did lend support to bombing a second city.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Part of the answer is that the Japanese authorities tied to pretend that the first bomb hadn't happened. If the second bomb fell in unoccupied forest then that would have been much easier to "hush up". (I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same thing as the Japanese govt did- I don't blame them, but it did lend support to bombing a second city.) All that was needed to demonstrate repeatability was to communicate the location of the 2nd (to all), a few minutes before (whatever the target), and just threaten that Nagasaki, or other, would be next. Edited August 9, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2nd was to demonstrate that the 1st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told? You've got to take into consideration the speed of information and sources available at that time. Perhaps the full consequences were not known about Hiroshima when Nagasaki was bombed. It's easy to judge with our near-instant modern viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 You've got to take into consideration the speed of information and sources available at that time. Perhaps the full consequences were not known about Hiroshima when Nagasaki was bombed. It's easy to judge with our near-instant modern viewpoint. Whilst I agree instant communication (for all) is a modern phenomenon. The location of the 2nd drop could be established almost instantly to the relevant authorities along with threats; the wider populace could have been informed by other means and even if a further demonstration was needed, innocents wouldn’t have had to suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 ....and even if a further demonstration was needed, innocents wouldn’t have had to suffer. As I get older, I am having philosophical problems with the idea of a general population being 'innocent', extant of its national forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) As I get older, I am having philosophical problems with the idea of a general population being 'innocent', extant of its national forces. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” But when that stone can kill untold numbers shouldn’t he who thinks ,or pretends, he is without sin, be restrained? Edited August 9, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2nd was to demonstrate that the 1st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told? Why focus on these two cities, and not the dozens of ones bombed earlier in the war, by both sides? The "novelty" of nuclear bombs was a matter of destructive power, not the act of bombing cities. You've got to take into consideration the speed of information and sources available at that time. Perhaps the full consequences were not known about Hiroshima when Nagasaki was bombed. It's easy to judge with our near-instant modern viewpoint. Three days is a long time to communicate, even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Why focus on these two cities, and not the dozens of ones bombed earlier in the war, by both sides? The "novelty" of nuclear bombs was a matter of destructive power, not the act of bombing cities. That wasn’t my intention when I started this thread but I can’t decide the direction/focus of the discussion. Edited August 9, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Whilst I agree instant communication (for all) is a modern phenomenon. The location of the 2nd drop could be established almost instantly to the relevant authorities along with threats; the wider populace could have been informed by other means and even if a further demonstration was needed, innocents wouldn’t have had to suffer. Are you saying that the US should have sent a message to the people of Japan? How? Why would they have believed their enemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now