4 ms·

> it's an affirmation of human goodness and rationality It's probably more of an affirmation that humans behave better when accountable for their actions. Two

> it's an affirmation of human goodness and rationality It's probably more of an affirmation that humans behave better when accountable for their actions. Two nukes were dropped when the enemy of the bomber had no way to retaliate in kind, and no more have been dropped since that stopped being true.

paulddraper 9y ago
US was the only nuclear power for several years though.
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  About four years from Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the USSR's first successful test. Soviets had the bomb before the Korean War.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    True. (Though the USSR's first successful air drop wasn't until Oct 1951, well into the Korea War.) Soviet nukes were not why the U.S. held back in Korea. It was the unpleasant prospect of a war with China (albeit a non-nuclear China). https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war-almost-went-nuclear-180955324/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war... And it didn't use them in Vietnam because it was thought to require so many (dozens/hundreds) as to be the antithesis of reunification. --- In short, the US avoided nukes for decades in the hope of peace, not because there were any nukes sighted on D.C. (MAD).
lsc 9y ago
My argument is that even this is a huge step forward. All historical evidence before this was that state actors could not be restrained by the mere threat of overwhelming force; before this, it seemed that nation state, even the big advanced ones needed to 'give it a shot' and be restrained by the reality of devastation, even when it was pretty obvious from the outset that they were biting off more than they could chew (c.f. the Schleffen plan in World War One, Japan's attack on America in World War Two.) Post world-war two? it seems humanity, or at least the big advanced nations, can be restrained by credible threats of devastation, which is a huge step forward over requiring actual devastation.

paulddraper 9y ago

US was the only nuclear power for several years though.

Brendinooo 9y ago
About four years from Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the USSR's first successful test. Soviets had the bomb before the Korean War.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  True. (Though the USSR's first successful air drop wasn't until Oct 1951, well into the Korea War.) Soviet nukes were not why the U.S. held back in Korea. It was the unpleasant prospect of a war with China (albeit a non-nuclear China). https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war-almost-went-nuclear-180955324/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war... And it didn't use them in Vietnam because it was thought to require so many (dozens/hundreds) as to be the antithesis of reunification. --- In short, the US avoided nukes for decades in the hope of peace, not because there were any nukes sighted on D.C. (MAD).

lsc 9y ago

My argument is that even this is a huge step forward. All historical evidence before this was that state actors could not be restrained by the mere threat of overwhelming force; before this, it seemed that nation state, even the big advanced ones needed to 'give it a shot' and be restrained by the reality of devastation, even when it was pretty obvious from the outset that they were biting off more than they could chew (c.f. the Schleffen plan in World War One, Japan's attack on America in World War Two.) Post world-war two? it seems humanity, or at least the big advanced nations, can be restrained by credible threats of devastation, which is a huge step forward over requiring actual devastation.