5 ms·

What makes you think the US wouldn’t have nuked half the world by now if they were the only ones that had it? The main reason why nobody uses nukes or why are

What makes you think the US wouldn’t have nuked half the world by now if they were the only ones that had it? The main reason why nobody uses nukes or why are there no direct wars between world powers anymore is nuclear proliferation. I might be wrong and we might have had 80 years of relative peace without them but looking at human history up to and including WW2 that does not seem likely..

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ericmay 4y ago
> What makes you think the US wouldn’t have nuked half the world by now if they were the only ones that had it? Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. Had the opportunity, actually, after Japan surrendered and the US could have went to war with the USSR and built and used more atomic weapons but it didn’t. It has had ample opportunity and actual generals in the military during war time who advocated for their use and they still weren’t used again. I sympathize with the OP (though I don’t think the US being the only one with nuclear weapons would make a difference) because proliferation has largely fallen into the hands of bad actors and as they continue to proliferate it effectively locks their awful governments in power.
- chopin 4y ago
  Afaik the time window for that (going to war with USSR) was very narrow. As well, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US had not enough material to build another bomb in short order. Which narrows the window even more.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    The US had momentum, was supplying the Soviets, had the bluff of the weapons (Soviets had no clue how many the US had) and the US could have engaged in war and then started building more and then using them. It’s also entirely possible that they could have just straight up won a conventional war. They opted not to. Moreso the US would have continued building atomic bombs and would had had enough to win a nuclear exchange with the Soviets and very well could have put an end to any nuclear proliferation and “nuked half the world”. But they didn’t. They chose peace and ending war instead.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    We were already in the process of assembling another Fat Man on Tinian. It wasn't likely to be used like the first two, but we were planning on using about five in Operation Olympic, the invasion of the first Japanese home island of Kyuushuu scheduled to begin three months later. In part because the original plan was blown by Japanese military intelligence for once getting the timing and locations correct, the former from simply logistics, and being believed so that nine divisions of troops had been moved to the island, blowing up the usual math required for an opposed amphibious assault and generally successful campaign. Those who didn't know about the Manhattan Project were planning on using poison gas. The Soviet program to make nuclear weapons didn't get really serious until we demonstrated they could work in Japan, and their equivalent of our Trinity test took another four years.
- xg15 4y ago
  "Because we're the good guys" is not a good argument. But even if you go that route, would you say the same of a US under Trump?
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > "Because we're the good guys" is not a good argument. It’s less of an argument and more of an observation. The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. > But even if you go that route, would you say the same of a US under Trump? Considering nothing really changed under Trump besides the 24/7 news cycle going into hyperdrive and him continually saying dumb and annoying things, yes. There was no real difference under Trump than Obama (my favorite president so far during my voting life, for example. The other problem here is you’re just taking arbitrary snapshots in time. Are the British good people? How about the French? They created Napoleon after all. Norwegians? Hundreds of years of raising and enslaving people. Russians? They’re only just now removed from the worst of the worst human atrocities under Stalin. The Dutch? Hello it’s The Congo. Japan? China? Brasil? So you can be honest and look from a historical perspective, or I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      > The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. While "nuke half the world" is a bit of obvious hyperbole, I think it is a mistake to write off the risks of the US as the sole nuclear power. It's not that Americans are particularly evil or good, but that unrestricted power is dangerous. There is a reason our constitution is designed to avoid placing too much power in anyone's hands. Unmitigated power is a risk and un-mitigated American nuclear power definitely increases the risk that it will used. The more interesting topic is if it was globally worth trading that risk for the risk of global annihilation.
    - vaidhy 4y ago
      > I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else. That is probably the closest to the truth. People in power will do things because they can and they are trying to extract the resources as much as they can. US has been in war pretty much all its history (except for 17 years)[0] It is nice to think we are different, but both history and political studies disagree. I think you want to be blinded by this because the war is not happening on US soil (not after WW2). In the recent times, it is the US who has been the aggressor. [0] - https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-17-years-of-peace.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-1...
- V__ 4y ago
  > Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump You are right, how could anyone ever think that the US government is that kind of people.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Sorry. Not accepting this narrative. Doubly so for the comment I was replying to which was suggesting that the US may “nuke half the world” if it were the only country with nuclear weapons. We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. > - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump Who cares? Should I go dig up a quote by some French politician and then suggest they are the kind of people that would “nuke half the world” too? You can make better arguments, though unlikely on this topic.
    - Cpoll 4y ago
      > We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? I remember people stating the same sentiment about, say, the American people electing Trump. I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. And once it's in swing, you have no choice but to believe it's a just war, because your country isn't the kind of people to start an unjust one.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        > Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? Here’s a proposal: Convince me that the Norwegians, Vietnamese, or Chileans are the kind of people that would nuke half the world (as put forth in the OP regarding America and nuclear proliferation), and then I’d be open to seriously entertaining an argument that the same is true of the United States. If the point here is to single out the US as a country and people that would nuke half the world if nobody else had nuclear weapons, I’m sorry but you might as well be trying to convince me that cows are made of lettuce. The premise is almost never starting from an honest place. > I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. Then why are we suggesting anything about the United States as though is unique here? Would New Zealand nuke half the world if they had nuclear weapons first and stopped proliferation? If your answer is no than your “kind of people” point is rather peculiar because what you’re really saying here is “we’re all the same” but under the same breath you are suggesting that the people of America aren’t because they’d, as the OP put it, nuke half the world. It’s especially peculiar because the United States has effectively held that option in the past, not used it even though it would have made strategic sense, and has fired multiple generals and military personnel during active conflicts who have suggested we should use nuclear weapons at all.
squarefoot 4y ago
> The main reason why nobody uses nukes or why are there no direct wars between world powers anymore is nuclear proliferation. This is sadly true, plus it also means that any nuclear capable country can invade a non nuclear capable one and mostly get away with it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ericmay 4y ago

> What makes you think the US wouldn’t have nuked half the world by now if they were the only ones that had it? Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. Had the opportunity, actually, after Japan surrendered and the US could have went to war with the USSR and built and used more atomic weapons but it didn’t. It has had ample opportunity and actual generals in the military during war time who advocated for their use and they still weren’t used again. I sympathize with the OP (though I don’t think the US being the only one with nuclear weapons would make a difference) because proliferation has largely fallen into the hands of bad actors and as they continue to proliferate it effectively locks their awful governments in power.

chopin 4y ago
Afaik the time window for that (going to war with USSR) was very narrow. As well, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the US had not enough material to build another bomb in short order. Which narrows the window even more.
- ericmay 4y ago
  The US had momentum, was supplying the Soviets, had the bluff of the weapons (Soviets had no clue how many the US had) and the US could have engaged in war and then started building more and then using them. It’s also entirely possible that they could have just straight up won a conventional war. They opted not to. Moreso the US would have continued building atomic bombs and would had had enough to win a nuclear exchange with the Soviets and very well could have put an end to any nuclear proliferation and “nuked half the world”. But they didn’t. They chose peace and ending war instead.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  We were already in the process of assembling another Fat Man on Tinian. It wasn't likely to be used like the first two, but we were planning on using about five in Operation Olympic, the invasion of the first Japanese home island of Kyuushuu scheduled to begin three months later. In part because the original plan was blown by Japanese military intelligence for once getting the timing and locations correct, the former from simply logistics, and being believed so that nine divisions of troops had been moved to the island, blowing up the usual math required for an opposed amphibious assault and generally successful campaign. Those who didn't know about the Manhattan Project were planning on using poison gas. The Soviet program to make nuclear weapons didn't get really serious until we demonstrated they could work in Japan, and their equivalent of our Trinity test took another four years.
xg15 4y ago
"Because we're the good guys" is not a good argument. But even if you go that route, would you say the same of a US under Trump?
- ericmay 4y ago
  > "Because we're the good guys" is not a good argument. It’s less of an argument and more of an observation. The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. > But even if you go that route, would you say the same of a US under Trump? Considering nothing really changed under Trump besides the 24/7 news cycle going into hyperdrive and him continually saying dumb and annoying things, yes. There was no real difference under Trump than Obama (my favorite president so far during my voting life, for example. The other problem here is you’re just taking arbitrary snapshots in time. Are the British good people? How about the French? They created Napoleon after all. Norwegians? Hundreds of years of raising and enslaving people. Russians? They’re only just now removed from the worst of the worst human atrocities under Stalin. The Dutch? Hello it’s The Congo. Japan? China? Brasil? So you can be honest and look from a historical perspective, or I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. While "nuke half the world" is a bit of obvious hyperbole, I think it is a mistake to write off the risks of the US as the sole nuclear power. It's not that Americans are particularly evil or good, but that unrestricted power is dangerous. There is a reason our constitution is designed to avoid placing too much power in anyone's hands. Unmitigated power is a risk and un-mitigated American nuclear power definitely increases the risk that it will used. The more interesting topic is if it was globally worth trading that risk for the risk of global annihilation.
  - vaidhy 4y ago
    > I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else. That is probably the closest to the truth. People in power will do things because they can and they are trying to extract the resources as much as they can. US has been in war pretty much all its history (except for 17 years)[0] It is nice to think we are different, but both history and political studies disagree. I think you want to be blinded by this because the war is not happening on US soil (not after WW2). In the recent times, it is the US who has been the aggressor. [0] - https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-17-years-of-peace.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-1...
V__ 4y ago
> Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump You are right, how could anyone ever think that the US government is that kind of people.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Sorry. Not accepting this narrative. Doubly so for the comment I was replying to which was suggesting that the US may “nuke half the world” if it were the only country with nuclear weapons. We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. > - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump Who cares? Should I go dig up a quote by some French politician and then suggest they are the kind of people that would “nuke half the world” too? You can make better arguments, though unlikely on this topic.
  - Cpoll 4y ago
    > We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? I remember people stating the same sentiment about, say, the American people electing Trump. I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. And once it's in swing, you have no choice but to believe it's a just war, because your country isn't the kind of people to start an unjust one.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? Here’s a proposal: Convince me that the Norwegians, Vietnamese, or Chileans are the kind of people that would nuke half the world (as put forth in the OP regarding America and nuclear proliferation), and then I’d be open to seriously entertaining an argument that the same is true of the United States. If the point here is to single out the US as a country and people that would nuke half the world if nobody else had nuclear weapons, I’m sorry but you might as well be trying to convince me that cows are made of lettuce. The premise is almost never starting from an honest place. > I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. Then why are we suggesting anything about the United States as though is unique here? Would New Zealand nuke half the world if they had nuclear weapons first and stopped proliferation? If your answer is no than your “kind of people” point is rather peculiar because what you’re really saying here is “we’re all the same” but under the same breath you are suggesting that the people of America aren’t because they’d, as the OP put it, nuke half the world. It’s especially peculiar because the United States has effectively held that option in the past, not used it even though it would have made strategic sense, and has fired multiple generals and military personnel during active conflicts who have suggested we should use nuclear weapons at all.

squarefoot 4y ago

> The main reason why nobody uses nukes or why are there no direct wars between world powers anymore is nuclear proliferation. This is sadly true, plus it also means that any nuclear capable country can invade a non nuclear capable one and mostly get away with it.