[Herra Tohtori]

Yeah, and that's why it's kinda hypocritical for them to complain about the fact that some of their most potential enemies then want the bomb too. It's like Aleksandr Karelin would be pitted against some average non-athletic office workers and then he would complain about them practicing before the match...

So, why is it so bad if Iran or NK has the nuclear bomb? What makes it different from any other state that have nukes and is ready to deploy them in certain situation?


Don't get me wrong here, I don't like it at all if more countries (any of them) obtain nukes in addition to those eight (or nine) too much that already have them. But someone has to play the advocatus diaboli.

[Bobboau]

because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?

[Herra Tohtori]

because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?

Well, I dunno about that mass conquest thingy (considering that US of A and a coalition of the willing did invade and effectively occupy a sovereign state few years ago and is still there), but the fact is that using nuclear weapons is bound to be kinda dangerous for a lot of people, and it doesn't really matter if the motives are genocidal or only homicidal. To use a nuclear weapon it's necessary to accept that thousands of civilians will die and infrastructure is wiped out on large area. Nuclear weapons always target civilian population just like other weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't make any difference in my eyes who uses the nuke and to what purpose.


Even id some individuals in the leadership of Iran/NK have dreams of mass conquest/genocide, I don't think they are stupid/ignorant enough to use a nuke to achieve that goal because they know it would only backfire, as practically all other nations with notable military might on Earth would turn against them and ass-rape them to kingdom come even with conventional weapons.

[Bobboau]

we don't want to be there, we want to leave, but we don't want a mass murder when we go so we are trying to rebuild there ability to govern themselves first, since we were the ones who destroyed it.

so the fire bombings we did in ww2 which killed more people in a more painful manner was genocide too? how about the carpet bombing of Germany? geno-cide means you are trying to kill an whole genus, or group of people, that has to be your goal for it to be genocide, if you just happen to totally annihilate another group of people when involved in some fight for territory or defence or what ever, that isn't genocide it's just an extremely well managed war.

there is a difference between using a nuke to bring a country to it's knees and using a nuke to kill every last one of 'the vermin'. if you are unwilling to see that difference then I don't see how you can hope to make any sence of the world or take part in this discussion.

[Herra Tohtori]

I know that right now, probably no one wants to be in Iraq, and I understand fully what would happen should the foreign troops be transferred away - full-blown civil war is among those options, as is an escalation of the conflict. No one probably wants that either except weapons industry lobbyists. What I was referring to was not the occupation itself but instead this:

we don't have dreams of mass conquest

First - who is "we"? US citizens? I don't doubt that. But I also don't think that Iranian or North Korean citizens have dreams of conquests. Governments and leaders are a different thing. Your president is on a mission from God, so I don't know what he's dreaming about, but he and his government did want to go to Iraq so badly that they apparently made their own intelligence agencies to manufacture suitable intel reports etc. to support the official motive of the war. I don't really know what the real motive was. I suspect it was to create more instability to the world so that the horrorist* regime could gain more power.

Secondly, whatever the motive was/is/will be, they did plan for invasion for a long time, so I think that counts as "dreaming" about conquest. Not necessarily mass conquest but conquest nevertheless. At least to this day it has effectively been a conquest instead of claimed liberation.

...

I know the difference between genocide (attempted or committed) and mass homicide.

All genocides are mass homicides, but all mass homicides are not necessarily genocides. The difference is in motives only, though - results are the same, as should be consequences. Using a nuclear war as means of genocide is not really very much different from using it as means of simple mass destruction, because both require willingness to kill a whole bunch of people that don't really deserve to be targeted - ie. civilians.

Thus it doesn't make much difference what the motive behind the use of a weapon of mass destruction is. Result is mass destruction anyway.


Fire bombing in Germany and Japan would by current standards definitely be deemed a war crime and mass murder of civilians. It was not a genocide, though, because the motive was (mostly) to disrupt the important military factories in those cities, although collateral damage was huge... By the standards of the day, it wasn't a mass murder nor a genocide, it was a military operation that demanded a lot of civilian casualties.  Fire bombing of Japan was a more hairy business though. But even that was not a genocide. Just mass homicide. Intended civilian casualties are not a part of well-managed war in any case. It's a terrorist action and war crime, unless the target really is military asset and civilian casualties are collateral damage (of reasonable scale).

Anyway. It doesn't make sense to try and dig up WW2-era precedents, because they don't really apply any more. What matters is today's standards and international rules of warfare.

Using a nuclear weapon against civilian population is as far as I know, mass murder and war crime by today's standards. If the motive is genocidal, using a nuke can also become attempted genocide in addition, but the result for said civilian population is all the same, and it rides on a pale horse. And, since it's practically impossible to use a nuclear weapon without huge loss if civilian lifes, any use of a nuclear weapon should IMHO be considered using it agains civilian population. What kind of military target would demand a nuclear strike to be destroyed? If it's so well defended that it demands a nuke, is it worth destroying? What other damage the nuke will cause other than destroying the target? Currently, I can't think of any target that would really demand use of nuclear warheads.

there is a difference between using a nuke to bring a country to it's knees and using a nuke to kill every last one of 'the vermin'. if you are unwilling to see that difference then I don't see how you can hope to make any sence of the world or take part in this discussion.

Obviously there was a big difference between forcing an issue with one or two strikes as US did to Japan, and glassing the whole country. But that happened in a full-fledged war between originally almost equal opponents in the middle of a world wide warzone. In today's world, I can't really think of a conflict where it would be necessary or acceptable to use nuclear weapons to force a surrender. Nor that it would work very well anyway.

Let's imagine a war between France (a nuclear state) and Germany (not). So, France and Germany end up having a private war on their border that threatens to escalate and eat up both countries' resources and reserve soldiers. Conflict proceeds so that France ends up slowly gining ground (as if). Anyway, France then decides to force a surrender by nuking some German cities and tries to justify that by saying that Germany wouldn't have surrendered, and an invasion would have killed more people in the end.

This is completely absurd of course, but it does make clear what my opinion is.

Synopsis.

In this time, it's not possibly to use a nuclear weapon in military operation (or any other WMD for that point) in a way that I could accept. The motive does not really matter to me. Conventional warfare is entirely different matter, since it's way easier to direct that away from civilians.

Regardless of whether someone uses a nuke to force a surrender, or to commit a genocide, it's unacceptable to me in both cases.

[perihelion]

Nuclear weapons wouldn't be terribly effective in these circumstances (from the US perspective) anyway.  We're not trying to force a military and government to surrender anymore.  We're in the middle of an occupation.  That's a totally different beast with a totally different target set.  There are no "military" targets because there's no military to fight.  If one wants to make WW2 comparisons, they'd be better off talking about the occupation of Japan that followed the war.  That occupation was fairly bloody as well.

[Bobboau]

'my' president is a lame duck who going to be on the street in about a year, and they can't do anything without our approval, granted they have a lot of power and can trick us, but they can't just go do what ever they want without at least some approval from a large chunk of the populous.

now as for the people of north Korea, they have been living in a controlled environment there entire lives, they have only known what there totalitarian government wanted them to know, and as a result I'm pretty sure they are 100% behind getting south Korea back from the evil capitalists.
Iran, do I even need to talk about the ABSOLUTE hatred of Israel? if anything there government is holding them back until it's convenient.

and as for your being sure the people with there fingers on the buttons not being stupid enough, that was basicly the argument I used to defend Bush ~five years ago, it's not a very good one I found out.

the US nuclear stockpile is there basically in case someone else gets nukes so they won't use them against us, but it isn't a very good defence, cause it's only by weight of retaliation that you intimidate your enemy into not attacking, it doesn't realy prevent the attack physically.
but that is the only reason we have them.

if you are in a war you can't lose, it's that simple, it's life or death, in the scenario you described france would be totaly within there rights to use there nukes. why? because if they didn't there would be no more france, that's what happens when you lose a war your country dies, and I'm sorry but if you don't fight dirty you aren't going to be around for very long, I'm not willing to bet my life on a philosophical moral position.

I'm not even sure what your overall point is supposed to be, that we should 'make love not war'? I mean I'm sorry but it's a ****ty world and people who don't deserve it die all the time. there are a lot of people who thing things should be different and they are willing to kill themselves to kill me to try and make what ever changes they deem fit. If killing millions of people is the only way for a country to survive, then it's gota do what it's gota do. it's no diferent than if you are on the street and you get in a fight, if the only way you are going to get out of it alive is by killing the other person there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with them trying to kill you after that point, cause you are now trying to kill them, you are standing out side of this and saying the whole situation is wrong, no ****, that isn't going to help, the only thing that sort of an attitude is going to achive to the people fighting is it's going to get the one who adopts it first killed.

[Rictor]

Iran, do I even need to talk about the ABSOLUTE hatred of Israel? if anything there government is holding them back until it's convenient.

Not true. Most Iranians, by all accounts I've heard, feel no hatred for Israel and certainly don't want them wiped off the map. Not even the conservatives in Iran's government are in favour of that. Hard though it may be to believe, Iran is a developed, middle-income, nationalist, generally conservative country - nothing more.

Ahmadinejad is, first of all, widely unpopular at home, and secondly holds no real power. It's the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Khamenei specifically who have the real power, and they are in no way insane. The revolutionary fervour of the Khomeini days has died down, no one is talking about a global Islamic revolution, overthrowing ME governments or anything like that. The government is controlled, far as I can figure, by conservatives, technocrats and businessmen - hardly the types to risk their nation's power and their own power on some demented fancy.

If Iran wants nukes, and right now that's arguable, it's most likely because a) it increases a nation's prestige and makes them part of an elite club, b) it is a detterant against US "regime change and the roughly 200,000 troops now encircling Iran and c) to act asa  strategic counter-force to Israel nukes.

Not to mention the fact that an explicit assumption of the NPT is that the current nuclear states move toward disarmament. If all the rest of the world is going to be denied nuclear weapons, I damn well want to know that eventually those who hold the unfair privilege are going to come back down to a  level playing field. If the nuclear states aren't disarming, the whole premise of the NPT is flawed. I'm not saying it's worthless, but it's ****ing hypocritical for the US to go on and on aobut non-proliferation when it is not only not disarming but actually developing new nuclear weapons.

[Nuclear1]

I'm not saying the US was wrong in a situation like that, but don't ever say the US is "not willing to use nuclear weapons first". The Bush administration has openly talked about using tactical nukes "first" in warfare several times over the last few years.  It is this love of the nuke that will be the doom of us all.

I never said I agreed with the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise.  They're a credible deterrent, but only against a similarly-armed adversary (see: Cold War).  The War on Terror, honestly, can be fought with conventional weapons effectively.

I only responded to your post because it seemed that you were condemning the US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was not only irrelevant to the topic, but an illogical argument.

[Bobboau]

to be honest, I'm not sure what to believe on what it's like in Iran, I just know Israel is generly not the most beloved nation in that region.

but I'll stand by what I said on NK.

[aldo_14]

The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.

India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.

Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.

Nevertheless, can you name a nation more likely to use their nuclear weapons offensively? 

Both N.Korea and Iran, even if they had them, aren't suicidal.  What dictator is?  Even Hitler only killed himself, rather than taking the whole population with him... dictators are either self-serving evil bastards, or warped 'patriots'.  Neither case gives them the impetus to bring doom to their own people - and no dictator reaches power without a very acute sense of threats to them.

[Herra Tohtori]

As far as I know, people in backwater Iran might still curse Alexander the Great rather than the Israeli people. Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, you know. It was only rought'bout two thousand years ago.

Remember, Persia became Iran relatively recently. It hasn't always been exclusively islamic regime in the long term. Not even Arabic. AFAIK Persian identity is somewhat separate from the ordinary Abdul Arab.

[Janos]

As far as I know, people in backwater Iran might still curse Alexander the Great rather than the Israeli people. Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, you know. It was only rought'bout two thousand years ago.

Remember, Persia became Iran relatively recently. It hasn't always been exclusively islamic regime in the long term. Not even Arabic. AFAIK Persian identity is somewhat separate from the ordinary Abdul Arab.

You should ask an Iranian what it feels like to be an arab.

Good times.

[Agent_Koopa]

The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.

India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.

Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.

Nevertheless, can you name a nation more likely to use their nuclear weapons offensively? 

Both N.Korea and Iran, even if they had them, aren't suicidal.  What dictator is?  Even Hitler only killed himself, rather than taking the whole population with him... dictators are either self-serving evil bastards, or warped 'patriots'.  Neither case gives them the impetus to bring doom to their own people - and no dictator reaches power without a very acute sense of threats to them.

I was under the impression that dictators are often perfectly willing to throw away the lives of their people. Hitler may have killed himself, but he also sparked a war that killed many on both sides. And Germany lost, remember?

[aldo_14]

The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.

India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.

Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.

Nevertheless, can you name a nation more likely to use their nuclear weapons offensively? 

Both N.Korea and Iran, even if they had them, aren't suicidal.  What dictator is?  Even Hitler only killed himself, rather than taking the whole population with him... dictators are either self-serving evil bastards, or warped 'patriots'.  Neither case gives them the impetus to bring doom to their own people - and no dictator reaches power without a very acute sense of threats to them.

I was under the impression that dictators are often perfectly willing to throw away the lives of their people. Hitler may have killed himself, but he also sparked a war that killed many on both sides. And Germany lost, remember?

All leaders are willing to start wars to throw away the lives of their people.  The only thing that differs with dictators is their motivation.  How many times can you cite a dictator performing some act - whether of horrible internal repression or outwards aggression - that they know will lead to the destruction of themselves and/or the country they rule?  These people are fundamentally cowards - the value of nuclear weapons to them is not crushing their enemies (because they can't without the Us destroying them in turn), but something to hide between.  Neither NK nor Iran want nuclear weapons to attack countries, but to avert an attack - specifically US - upon them.  North Korea simply wants (by this I mean its leader) to be left in enough peace to continue the horrible repression of their people and funding of the lavish decadence of the ruling cadre.  Iran wants to expand its power (and, I would presume) the Islamic revolutionary theory across the Middle East - targeting Israel is simply a tactic of this, same as the US targets Iran and North Korea to support it's self-image of 'defender of the free world'.

[TrashMan]

Maybe because America isnt crazy enough or dangerous to use it as a first strike weapon against another country. When Iran, on a weekly basis threatens the destruction of Israel, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the world to make sure they dont posses weapons that can do it.

And who are you to say who is dangerous/crazy or unthrustworthy or not?
You think Iran may drop the bomb simply becosue of a few statements? Hell I've hear Bush talk some pretyy wierd stuff and do even stupider things. By my reckoning he belongs in a white coat and a rubber room, and not leading a big, powerfull country.

Hell, I can say the same for half the world leaders, eastern and western!

The truth is NOBODY deserves the damn bomb. But you can't hog it for yourself once you have it either.

Believe it or not, despite your moral reletavism, there are countries that if they possesed the bomb, would kill millions of people and would destroy your way of life. There are people out there that want to kill you.. yes you personally, because you are not part of their ideology and religion, you are a westerner, and want to take everything you have away from you.

A terrorist group might do that. They are fanatical enough. But they could never get it inot the US even if they got their hands on it.
A COUNTRY doing it is far less likely. Oh, lets not forget that the only country that actualyl used the things was the good 'ol USA..

[TrashMan]

So, two atomic bombs, or hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties against an enemy that didn't surrender?

Compared to the other option, it seems that the US dropping the bomb was the best way to go.

Hmmm...economical slavery and poverty for my people, horrid losses in a war against the US or several thousands of casualties on THEIR side? Yes, it woudl be logical to nuke the USA....

By now you should realise that logic and morality have often very little in common. Using logic you can often rationalize even the most horrid of actions..

we don't want to be there, we want to leave, but we don't want a mass murder when we go so we are trying to rebuild there ability to govern themselves first, since we were the ones who destroyed it.

so the fire bombings we did in ww2 which killed more people in a more painful manner was genocide too? how about the carpet bombing of Germany? geno-cide means you are trying to kill an whole genus, or group of people, that has to be your goal for it to be genocide, if you just happen to totally annihilate another group of people when involved in some fight for territory or defence or what ever, that isn't genocide it's just an extremely well managed war.

there is a difference between using a nuke to bring a country to it's knees and using a nuke to kill every last one of 'the vermin'. if you are unwilling to see that difference then I don't see how you can hope to make any sence of the world or take part in this discussion.

End result is the sam tough.. I don't really think that millions of dead people would really care if their death was for the "right cause"

[aldo_14]

The calculated civillian casualties on the Japanese side in the event Operation Downfall were also in the millions....

[TrashMan]

Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...

[Agent_Koopa]

Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...

aldo_14's point is that the atomic bombs killed fewer. However, the calculated civilian casualties were estimates, were they not? I won't argue with aldo on this point, because it's a debate with well-established points on both sides and it's up to you which to accept.

Read both support and opposition, please.