4 ms·

Using nuclear weapons in any situation is morally unjustifiable, and frankly nearly always a war crime (since they are too large to avoid civilians). This was

Using nuclear weapons in any situation is morally unjustifiable, and frankly nearly always a war crime (since they are too large to avoid civilians). This was utterly irresponsible, and from the sounds of it in direct violation of presidential orders. Isn't disobeying orders in the military quite a big thing?

3pt14159 13y ago
It is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. If a country decides to be peaceful and not have an active army, airforce, and navy; but retains a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is it morally unjustifiable to strike an invading fleet with atomic bombs? The whole point behind MAD is to show that you refuse to play the game of "I have the bigger army" and to literally level the playing field by making the game lose-lose.
- brazzy 13y ago
  So that's why the Soviet Union and the USA didn't have to invest much in conventional weapons during the cold war! Oh, wait...
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  Using nukes to bomb entire civilian cities when the other side can't respond (US, 1945) is completely wrong. Using nukes against a conventional army is dubious - it is disproportionate in the extreme. The threat of using them may not be wrong (but I'm still not convinced on that point.) Then (as sister comment says) neither side was playing the game right in the cold war. I object to the way the game is set up in international relations - If we actually had a system to enforce international law it would be much much harder to justify having unilateral armies at all! My views on this are somewhat unconventional, though, so don't worry if I sound crazy; I may well be.
graeme 13y ago
Civilian control of the military was tenuous in the early decades of the cold war. Curtis Lemay, head of the Strategic Air Command, made his own plans for a pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. Lemay also clashed with Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. And Truman had to recall Macarthur when the latter refused to obey presidential directives.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know that. Even more scary, really - glad all that's over (if it actually is).

3pt14159 13y ago

It is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. If a country decides to be peaceful and not have an active army, airforce, and navy; but retains a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is it morally unjustifiable to strike an invading fleet with atomic bombs? The whole point behind MAD is to show that you refuse to play the game of "I have the bigger army" and to literally level the playing field by making the game lose-lose.

brazzy 13y ago
So that's why the Soviet Union and the USA didn't have to invest much in conventional weapons during the cold war! Oh, wait...
tehwalrus 13y ago
Using nukes to bomb entire civilian cities when the other side can't respond (US, 1945) is completely wrong. Using nukes against a conventional army is dubious - it is disproportionate in the extreme. The threat of using them may not be wrong (but I'm still not convinced on that point.) Then (as sister comment says) neither side was playing the game right in the cold war. I object to the way the game is set up in international relations - If we actually had a system to enforce international law it would be much much harder to justify having unilateral armies at all! My views on this are somewhat unconventional, though, so don't worry if I sound crazy; I may well be.

graeme 13y ago

Civilian control of the military was tenuous in the early decades of the cold war. Curtis Lemay, head of the Strategic Air Command, made his own plans for a pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. Lemay also clashed with Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. And Truman had to recall Macarthur when the latter refused to obey presidential directives.

tehwalrus 13y ago
Thanks, I didn't know that. Even more scary, really - glad all that's over (if it actually is).