3 ms·

I don't think there is any doubt that a "preemptive" nuclear first strike by the US would have morally and legally been regarded as genocide. The last time we

I don't think there is any doubt that a "preemptive" nuclear first strike by the US would have morally and legally been regarded as genocide. The last time we had a debate on HN on this topic a number of people seemed to think it would have been a good idea - which I found genuinely disturbing. Hopefully I was just being trolled.

Koshkin 6y ago
On the other hand, there is still no universal agreement on the morality of the wartime bombing campaigns that lead to high numbers of civilian casualties.
- arethuza 6y ago
  I'm always reminded of the lines from Daniel Ellsberg in the describing his experiences in the early 1960s: "The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts. I remember what I thought when I held the single sheet with the graph on it. I thought, this piece of paper should not exist. It should never have existed. Not in America. Not anywhere, ever. It depicted evil beyond any human project that had ever existed. There should be nothing on Earth, nothing real, that it referred to." https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html Edit: The staggering thing about the estimate of 600 million dead was that this was known to be an underestimate as the US didn't take the thermal effects of nuclear weapons into account during planning as they were regarded as too unpredictable. Actual 'real' estimates would be over a billion dead....
Retric 6y ago
Genocide is about destruction of a people not simply large numbers of deaths. The Holocaust is the model people assume, but China’s current genocide of the Uyghur is genocide based on intent even without large scale slaughter. Now you might be overestimating the US nuclear arsenal at the time, remember he died in 1957. At the time a nuclear exchange could have killed a lot of people, but only on the scale of a major bombing campaign not glassing the country. As such, assuming US attacked and occupied Russia after an early nuclear exchange, it would have been war but not fit the definition of genocide because the intent to destroy a people simply wasn’t there. PS: One of the less well known examples, the US forcibly sending American Indian children to boarding schools to be Americanized actually fits the UN definition of genocide. That’s the heart of the issue, the intent to destroy a people or culture rather than say conquest or even retaliation.
- arethuza 6y ago
  In 1961 the Pentagon's own estimates gave the expected casualties at 600 million plus when it had ~20K weapons. In 1950 the US had ~2500 weapons so scaling that back proportionally still looks like 10s of millions dead. Edit: I suspect maximum lethality of the US stockpile would have been during the 1960s when they still used large numbers of very large and dirty weapons.
  - Retric 6y ago
    1961 the US had ICBM’s and large numbers of vastly more powerful Hydrogen bombs and very accurate targeting methods. In 1950 the US was still limited to long range bombers, many or even most of which would get shot down and so they would have concentrated on the most critical military targets. Thus, even 10 million dead in 1950 seems very high unless they simply tried to maximize civilian casualties which it’s self would reasonably qualify as genocide. And again Russia lost ~27 million people in WWII and it isn’t considered a genocide of Russia so numbers alone while horrific don’t qualify.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      I agree that a "preventative" war in 1950 would have been a very different thing from 1961. However, von Neumann was active as a political adviser to very close to his death and I was unaware that he had rejected the idea of such an attack - there were certainly others who favoured such a thing well into the 1960s.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Sure, though my understanding was this was specifically about an attack before Russia started mass production of atomic bombs. First strike after that point would likely have been vastly more costly on both sides. He was very much aware of the idea, which is why he’s credited in the name and acronym MAD. In the end the world avoided a large scale nuclear exchange, but when faced with a seemingly like war between two nuclear armed superpowers I can understand the argument.

Koshkin 6y ago

On the other hand, there is still no universal agreement on the morality of the wartime bombing campaigns that lead to high numbers of civilian casualties.

arethuza 6y ago
I'm always reminded of the lines from Daniel Ellsberg in the describing his experiences in the early 1960s: "The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts. I remember what I thought when I held the single sheet with the graph on it. I thought, this piece of paper should not exist. It should never have existed. Not in America. Not anywhere, ever. It depicted evil beyond any human project that had ever existed. There should be nothing on Earth, nothing real, that it referred to." https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html Edit: The staggering thing about the estimate of 600 million dead was that this was known to be an underestimate as the US didn't take the thermal effects of nuclear weapons into account during planning as they were regarded as too unpredictable. Actual 'real' estimates would be over a billion dead....

Retric 6y ago

Genocide is about destruction of a people not simply large numbers of deaths. The Holocaust is the model people assume, but China’s current genocide of the Uyghur is genocide based on intent even without large scale slaughter. Now you might be overestimating the US nuclear arsenal at the time, remember he died in 1957. At the time a nuclear exchange could have killed a lot of people, but only on the scale of a major bombing campaign not glassing the country. As such, assuming US attacked and occupied Russia after an early nuclear exchange, it would have been war but not fit the definition of genocide because the intent to destroy a people simply wasn’t there. PS: One of the less well known examples, the US forcibly sending American Indian children to boarding schools to be Americanized actually fits the UN definition of genocide. That’s the heart of the issue, the intent to destroy a people or culture rather than say conquest or even retaliation.

arethuza 6y ago
In 1961 the Pentagon's own estimates gave the expected casualties at 600 million plus when it had ~20K weapons. In 1950 the US had ~2500 weapons so scaling that back proportionally still looks like 10s of millions dead. Edit: I suspect maximum lethality of the US stockpile would have been during the 1960s when they still used large numbers of very large and dirty weapons.
- Retric 6y ago
  1961 the US had ICBM’s and large numbers of vastly more powerful Hydrogen bombs and very accurate targeting methods. In 1950 the US was still limited to long range bombers, many or even most of which would get shot down and so they would have concentrated on the most critical military targets. Thus, even 10 million dead in 1950 seems very high unless they simply tried to maximize civilian casualties which it’s self would reasonably qualify as genocide. And again Russia lost ~27 million people in WWII and it isn’t considered a genocide of Russia so numbers alone while horrific don’t qualify.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    I agree that a "preventative" war in 1950 would have been a very different thing from 1961. However, von Neumann was active as a political adviser to very close to his death and I was unaware that he had rejected the idea of such an attack - there were certainly others who favoured such a thing well into the 1960s.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Sure, though my understanding was this was specifically about an attack before Russia started mass production of atomic bombs. First strike after that point would likely have been vastly more costly on both sides. He was very much aware of the idea, which is why he’s credited in the name and acronym MAD. In the end the world avoided a large scale nuclear exchange, but when faced with a seemingly like war between two nuclear armed superpowers I can understand the argument.