3 ms·

There is no way we could match them in numbers on the ground. Such a conflict would have inevitably led to us nuking them as a result. Which is probably the r

There is no way we could match them in numbers on the ground. Such a conflict would have inevitably led to us nuking them as a result. Which is probably the reason decision makers chose not to.

petcat 10mo ago
And maybe that's really the humanitarian failure. That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people.
- yongjik 10mo ago
  Wow, just half a dozen comments from why we're not saving North Koreans to "we could've nuked China and solved a lot of problems." Some Hacker News threads are on their own level.
  - petcat 10mo ago
    Well we know what happened to North Korea after China "won". And it's pretty fucking god-awful for 10s of millions of people for 80+ years. USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity.
    - gpm 10mo ago
      USA dropping nukes would have prevented the convention against using nukes in wars from being started. I think there's a pretty good chance we wouldn't have any civilization left by now if we went down that fork in history.
      - jojobas 10mo ago
        How is nuking Japan different from nuking Korea? Everybody agrees that forcing Japan to surrender with nukes was much better for everyone involved than a ground invasion.
        AngryData 10mo ago
        When Japan was bombed, nobody else in the world had nuclear weapons, the US only had 2, and there were only a handful of people outside of the US seriously researching nuclear weapons and were still years away from a test. By 1950 the USSR had working nuclear bombs, had proven so with a nuclear test, and a dozen other countries had started their own nuclear weapons programs.
        nl 10mo ago
        It's different almost by definition? Because it was a once (twice!) off the impact and significance of it is amplified.
    - nl 10mo ago
      Wait - you think the solution to some people having a lower standard of living and others being persecuted is to kill them all?
      - lkbm 10mo ago
        Nukes usually don't wipe out entire countries, especially tactical nukes. I'm far from convinced that using nukes in the Korean War would've been a good move, but equating it with "kill[ing] them all" is completely dishonest. What's your goal in this debate, and is it served by dishonest rhetoric?
        nl 10mo ago
        My comment is in the context of: > That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people. > USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity. Both of which I read as an expansive campaign of "nuking China"
- TheBicPen 10mo ago
  Maybe the real humanitarian failure is that the US didn't nuke everybody and start over from the stone age. Can't any societal problems if no societies exist, right?
- noobr 10mo ago
  wtf

There is no way we could match them in numbers on the ground. Such a conflict would have inevitably led to us nuking them as a result. Which is probably the reason decision makers chose not to.

petcat 10mo ago

And maybe that's really the humanitarian failure. That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people.

yongjik 10mo ago
Wow, just half a dozen comments from why we're not saving North Koreans to "we could've nuked China and solved a lot of problems." Some Hacker News threads are on their own level.
- petcat 10mo ago
  Well we know what happened to North Korea after China "won". And it's pretty fucking god-awful for 10s of millions of people for 80+ years. USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity.
  - gpm 10mo ago
    USA dropping nukes would have prevented the convention against using nukes in wars from being started. I think there's a pretty good chance we wouldn't have any civilization left by now if we went down that fork in history.
    - jojobas 10mo ago
      How is nuking Japan different from nuking Korea? Everybody agrees that forcing Japan to surrender with nukes was much better for everyone involved than a ground invasion.
      - AngryData 10mo ago
        When Japan was bombed, nobody else in the world had nuclear weapons, the US only had 2, and there were only a handful of people outside of the US seriously researching nuclear weapons and were still years away from a test. By 1950 the USSR had working nuclear bombs, had proven so with a nuclear test, and a dozen other countries had started their own nuclear weapons programs.
      - nl 10mo ago
        It's different almost by definition? Because it was a once (twice!) off the impact and significance of it is amplified.
  - nl 10mo ago
    Wait - you think the solution to some people having a lower standard of living and others being persecuted is to kill them all?
    - lkbm 10mo ago
      Nukes usually don't wipe out entire countries, especially tactical nukes. I'm far from convinced that using nukes in the Korean War would've been a good move, but equating it with "kill[ing] them all" is completely dishonest. What's your goal in this debate, and is it served by dishonest rhetoric?
      - nl 10mo ago
        My comment is in the context of: > That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people. > USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity. Both of which I read as an expansive campaign of "nuking China"
TheBicPen 10mo ago
Maybe the real humanitarian failure is that the US didn't nuke everybody and start over from the stone age. Can't any societal problems if no societies exist, right?
noobr 10mo ago
wtf