3 ms·

Unassailable? That short-sited philosophy essentially legitimizes the use of any weapon if the goal in using it is to finish a war faster. The goal of each si

Unassailable? That short-sited philosophy essentially legitimizes the use of any weapon if the goal in using it is to finish a war faster. The goal of each side in a war is to dominate and win as fast as possible, but there are degrees of immorality, and to stoop to deplorable means (gas, nukes, biological) to bring about a quicker end is to lose the high ground and very likely inspire surrounding nations to unite against you. Thankfully, our leaders have realized this, otherwise we'd have kept on using nukes when in conflicts since dropping them on Japan.

mc32 11y ago
Sometimes you also have to learn from experience how bad something is in order to actively work against using it again. For example mustard gas, etc. One could argue the detonation of smallish weapons prevented the future detonation of much bigger weapons in the future knowing the horror an even smallish weapon caused.
- hga 11y ago
  Indeed, there's nothing I would change about history up to that point, having read a lot of pre-actual bomb dropping science fiction, which detailed many much worse ways nuclear weapons could have be introduced to humanity. Or take all the alternate histories of WWII where the Nazis hold out for much longer, especially their somehow not provoking a World War earlier than they were ready for. Give them enough time and their delivering plutonium nukes to our cities in stealthy flying wing bombers or V-2 descendants is not out of the question.
  - RankingMember 11y ago
    "Sometimes you also have to learn from experience how bad something is in order to actively work against using it again. For example mustard gas, etc. One could argue the detonation of smallish weapons prevented the future detonation of much bigger weapons in the future knowing the horror an even smallish weapon caused." "Indeed, there's nothing I would change about history up to that point, having read a lot of pre-actual bomb dropping science fiction, which detailed many much worse ways nuclear weapons could have be introduced to humanity. Or take all the alternate histories of WWII where the Nazis hold out for much longer, especially their somehow not provoking a World War earlier than they were ready for. Give them enough time and their delivering plutonium nukes to our cities in stealthy flying wing bombers or V-2 descendants is not out of the question." What I'm getting from these two comments is that it's good we dropped two bombs on civilians because it taught us that we shouldn't do that and that, also, there was some scary science fiction about worse ways for nuclear weapons to be introduced to humanity so our way wasn't that bad. Is that what you're intending, because I can't really read it any other way. "Indeed, there's nothing I would change about history up to that point" It's hard to argue hypotheticals, but really, you wouldn't change anything about history up to that point? Perhaps not strangling Germany quite as hard as we did after WWI? You wouldn't change that even if it'd completely erase the climate where the Nazis could rise to power?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I've always doubted the 'we made them do it' argument. Sure they were under pressure to repay WWI. That made them poor. But not every country that is poor, is also xenophobic, militaristic and nationalist to the point they are willing to kill everyone else in the world to get their way. The political climate of the country caused WWI; it also caused WWII. And the prevailing culture there was largely the reason, not details of what made them mad and rise up. Its a form of victim blaming, little different from saying "if you didn't wear such revealing clothing, then rapists wouldn't bother you".
      - RankingMember 11y ago
        Saying that the harsh terms of Versailles contributed to a climate where the Nazis could rise to power is a far cry from "we made them do it".
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Sorry, should have posted to the parent. Responding to the part about provoking WWI.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Not saying that at all. You might as well claim that I said it was good that forty million european civilians died in the war because in the end we won. It's quite the turn of wording. No the point is we used the weapons when they were way less destructive and found them reprehensible. Imagine finding this out at the megaton level. When these weapons were used we had lots of uncertainty. There was lots of ignorance. Some involved in their development were not sure they'd consume the atmosphere or not. We simply were ignorant about a lot of things regarding them. On balance though I think they resulted in more good than bad, given the alternative and in addition to the lessons learned.

mc32 11y ago

Sometimes you also have to learn from experience how bad something is in order to actively work against using it again. For example mustard gas, etc. One could argue the detonation of smallish weapons prevented the future detonation of much bigger weapons in the future knowing the horror an even smallish weapon caused.

hga 11y ago
Indeed, there's nothing I would change about history up to that point, having read a lot of pre-actual bomb dropping science fiction, which detailed many much worse ways nuclear weapons could have be introduced to humanity. Or take all the alternate histories of WWII where the Nazis hold out for much longer, especially their somehow not provoking a World War earlier than they were ready for. Give them enough time and their delivering plutonium nukes to our cities in stealthy flying wing bombers or V-2 descendants is not out of the question.
- RankingMember 11y ago
  "Sometimes you also have to learn from experience how bad something is in order to actively work against using it again. For example mustard gas, etc. One could argue the detonation of smallish weapons prevented the future detonation of much bigger weapons in the future knowing the horror an even smallish weapon caused." "Indeed, there's nothing I would change about history up to that point, having read a lot of pre-actual bomb dropping science fiction, which detailed many much worse ways nuclear weapons could have be introduced to humanity. Or take all the alternate histories of WWII where the Nazis hold out for much longer, especially their somehow not provoking a World War earlier than they were ready for. Give them enough time and their delivering plutonium nukes to our cities in stealthy flying wing bombers or V-2 descendants is not out of the question." What I'm getting from these two comments is that it's good we dropped two bombs on civilians because it taught us that we shouldn't do that and that, also, there was some scary science fiction about worse ways for nuclear weapons to be introduced to humanity so our way wasn't that bad. Is that what you're intending, because I can't really read it any other way. "Indeed, there's nothing I would change about history up to that point" It's hard to argue hypotheticals, but really, you wouldn't change anything about history up to that point? Perhaps not strangling Germany quite as hard as we did after WWI? You wouldn't change that even if it'd completely erase the climate where the Nazis could rise to power?
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I've always doubted the 'we made them do it' argument. Sure they were under pressure to repay WWI. That made them poor. But not every country that is poor, is also xenophobic, militaristic and nationalist to the point they are willing to kill everyone else in the world to get their way. The political climate of the country caused WWI; it also caused WWII. And the prevailing culture there was largely the reason, not details of what made them mad and rise up. Its a form of victim blaming, little different from saying "if you didn't wear such revealing clothing, then rapists wouldn't bother you".
    - RankingMember 11y ago
      Saying that the harsh terms of Versailles contributed to a climate where the Nazis could rise to power is a far cry from "we made them do it".
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Sorry, should have posted to the parent. Responding to the part about provoking WWI.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Not saying that at all. You might as well claim that I said it was good that forty million european civilians died in the war because in the end we won. It's quite the turn of wording. No the point is we used the weapons when they were way less destructive and found them reprehensible. Imagine finding this out at the megaton level. When these weapons were used we had lots of uncertainty. There was lots of ignorance. Some involved in their development were not sure they'd consume the atmosphere or not. We simply were ignorant about a lot of things regarding them. On balance though I think they resulted in more good than bad, given the alternative and in addition to the lessons learned.