3 ms·

So, let me get this straight: you'd rather have nuclear weapons become a normal weapon of war, as opposed to a deterrent, than have people complain about a war?

So, let me get this straight: you'd rather have nuclear weapons become a normal weapon of war, as opposed to a deterrent, than have people complain about a war? Wow.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Certainly a nuclear strike would have been a quicker ending with less casualties, no?
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  This "quicker ending" narrative justifies unlimited escalation of violence.
- guildwriter 9y ago
  If China and the USSR didn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the Vietnam War? Perhaps. If it didn't cause the NVA to completely dissipate into full on guerrilla warfare? Sure.
- georgebarnett 9y ago
  Perhaps initially, however their use would be normalised and so ultimately casualties would likely be higher as more were used. Also radiation pollution would be the gift that keeps killing.
ChristianGeek 9y ago
He's saying exactly the same thing that was, and still is, used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. He is not saying anything about using them as normal weapons of war. Whether or not you consider this a reasonable argument is up to you.
- will_brown 9y ago
  >that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. Exactly, Firebombings in Japan resulted in about twice as many human casualties than with Little Man and Fat Boy combined. Before the 1st bomb the United States called for the unconditional surrender or "face prompt and utter destruction". Japan's response was their intent to fight on to the bitter end. After the first bomb Truman called for Japan's surrender, or "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." To no avail, and after the second bomb was detonated Emperor Hirohito called for accepting the terms of the allies, but even the surrender, in hindsight, was probably lucky as there was a failed coup, which if successful would have lead to the continued and ongoing armed conflict.
  - sedachv 9y ago
    That is a Cold War propaganda tale that is not entirely accurate. The main motivation for the use of the atomic bombs by the US was as a show of force warning to the Soviet Union. The bombings were planned to coincide with the start of the Manchurian Operation (Soviet declaration of war against Japan). The main motivation for the Japanese surrender was the Soviet declaration of war, and the Japanese decision to surrender would have been made without the atomic bombing. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-guide-unnecessary/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic...
    - will_brown 9y ago
      That it a very strange interpretation of your own links. Essentially, what those articles were saying is that Japan was holding out on surrender to negotiate better terms, hopeful that consistent with the 5 year neutrality agreement with the Soviets the Soviets would assist in negotiations with the US. Short of obtaining the more desirable terms Japan seemed to be more than willing to accept the loses, in fact their leaders are quoted as saying the loses would only strengthen and unify the Country further. You can claim Japan was going to surrender, but they were not, the Soviet invasion was helpful in the sense that it made clear the Soviets were not going to assist in negotiations, so there was no more reason for a holdout on diplomatic terms, but as a result Japan was beholden to the military option over unconditional surrender, until the 2nd bomb, and again even then surrender may not have occurred if the coup was successful against the Emperor. Finally, if it were really the Soviet invasion, you think the Emperor would have been more inclined to acknowledge them, rather in his surrender speech he mentions only one concern, specifically: "the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
Joeboy 9y ago
At the time of writing the comment you're replying to says this: > So protestors caused USA to lose the war, as Nixon complained? Which doesn't seem to me to contain the meaning you're inferring at all.

So, let me get this straight: you'd rather have nuclear weapons become a normal weapon of war, as opposed to a deterrent, than have people complain about a war? Wow.

MichaelGG 9y ago

Certainly a nuclear strike would have been a quicker ending with less casualties, no?

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
This "quicker ending" narrative justifies unlimited escalation of violence.
guildwriter 9y ago
If China and the USSR didn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the Vietnam War? Perhaps. If it didn't cause the NVA to completely dissipate into full on guerrilla warfare? Sure.
georgebarnett 9y ago
Perhaps initially, however their use would be normalised and so ultimately casualties would likely be higher as more were used. Also radiation pollution would be the gift that keeps killing.

ChristianGeek 9y ago

He's saying exactly the same thing that was, and still is, used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. He is not saying anything about using them as normal weapons of war. Whether or not you consider this a reasonable argument is up to you.

will_brown 9y ago
>that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. Exactly, Firebombings in Japan resulted in about twice as many human casualties than with Little Man and Fat Boy combined. Before the 1st bomb the United States called for the unconditional surrender or "face prompt and utter destruction". Japan's response was their intent to fight on to the bitter end. After the first bomb Truman called for Japan's surrender, or "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." To no avail, and after the second bomb was detonated Emperor Hirohito called for accepting the terms of the allies, but even the surrender, in hindsight, was probably lucky as there was a failed coup, which if successful would have lead to the continued and ongoing armed conflict.
- sedachv 9y ago
  That is a Cold War propaganda tale that is not entirely accurate. The main motivation for the use of the atomic bombs by the US was as a show of force warning to the Soviet Union. The bombings were planned to coincide with the start of the Manchurian Operation (Soviet declaration of war against Japan). The main motivation for the Japanese surrender was the Soviet declaration of war, and the Japanese decision to surrender would have been made without the atomic bombing. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-guide-unnecessary/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic...
  - will_brown 9y ago
    That it a very strange interpretation of your own links. Essentially, what those articles were saying is that Japan was holding out on surrender to negotiate better terms, hopeful that consistent with the 5 year neutrality agreement with the Soviets the Soviets would assist in negotiations with the US. Short of obtaining the more desirable terms Japan seemed to be more than willing to accept the loses, in fact their leaders are quoted as saying the loses would only strengthen and unify the Country further. You can claim Japan was going to surrender, but they were not, the Soviet invasion was helpful in the sense that it made clear the Soviets were not going to assist in negotiations, so there was no more reason for a holdout on diplomatic terms, but as a result Japan was beholden to the military option over unconditional surrender, until the 2nd bomb, and again even then surrender may not have occurred if the coup was successful against the Emperor. Finally, if it were really the Soviet invasion, you think the Emperor would have been more inclined to acknowledge them, rather in his surrender speech he mentions only one concern, specifically: "the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Joeboy 9y ago

At the time of writing the comment you're replying to says this: > So protestors caused USA to lose the war, as Nixon complained? Which doesn't seem to me to contain the meaning you're inferring at all.