[aldo_14]

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

There is no other rational or defensible option.  War is ****. People die.

[Nuclear1]

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

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.

Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered.  Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.

[Kosh]

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

You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.

[Mefustae]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.

Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered.  Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.

Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions.

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

You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.

...Not to mention how the Neo-cons have never made it a secret that they want a world run and overseen by the US. They're just so damn good at misdirection that they don't often get called on it.

[TrashMan]

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.

Load of bull. In practicly any war except a all-out-genocide (nuclear) the people will survive. They are what counts. They are the country. F** the flag, the nation leadership - they are totaly unimportant.
If they were to fall I wouldn't shed a tear.

Regardless, if the survival of my country would require the death of millions, then let it die. Nothing is worth such sacrifices...

[TrashMan]

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

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.

Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered.  Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.

Key word - ESTIMATES. I cna estimate even worse figures if  Iwanted to.

But since no one can predict the furute, there's no way you could have known what Japan would do if no bomb was dropped, if the US only blockaded Japan.
And if you're tellimg me you DO know, they I'd say you're dellusional.

[vyper]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.

Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered.  Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.

Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions.

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

You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.

...Not to mention how the Neo-cons have never made it a secret that they want a world run and overseen by the US. They're just so damn good at misdirection that they don't often get called on it.

Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.

[aldo_14]

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

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.

Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered.  Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.

Key word - ESTIMATES. I cna estimate even worse figures if  Iwanted to.

But since no one can predict the furute, there's no way you could have known what Japan would do if no bomb was dropped, if the US only blockaded Japan.
And if you're tellimg me you DO know, they I'd say you're dellusional.

It's easy to make lofty claims with 20/20 hindsight, but to claim to have the best case with reasoning that stands up to neither the facts known then, nor the facts known now, is height of daftness.

Oh, and the US did blockade Japan.  I believe the estimates on the casualty figures for 'Operation Starvation' were also higher than the nuclear bombs, although you've chosen to ignore that when it's been mentioned.  You've also consistently failed to apply the same logic in the Western front; would you have been happy to stop the Allies at the borders of pre 1930 Germany and leave Hitler in power?

[Herra Tohtori]

Please. It's not very sensible to even discussa bout Japan and nukes in this context. What happened to Japan is in no way analogous to anything that might happen in near future considering nukes.

Japan was a strong military might, strongest in far east by large margin. US and Japan fought a long and bloody war, and ther ehad been  a whole lot of other wars going on in Europe and Africa too (you know, the little conflict called WW2). At the time, Japan was the only remaining axis country to keep on going, even though it was obvious that eventually they would simply lose. Use of the nuclear weapons did bring a short end to what might have been perhaps year or even two more of warfare between US and Japan. I'm not going to start guessing how much worse would've been if the war continued, but in any way it's not comparable to present or future wars. So, in a way it was acceptable to use those two nukes but that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to use them to end a war today, or in the future. Remember the imaginary France vs Germany match, where France decided to end the war by nuking some German cities... No one would accept that.

Anyway. Originally, the question was why it is so bad for Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons when US, Russia, UK, France, India, Pakistan and China have them?

Apparently the answer is because:

a. they might use them
b. to commit genocide and/or world conquest.

So, what makes it different from current nuclear states? If they have nukes, they must be willing to use them in some situation*. So, a. applies to all nuclear states and thus, ther eis no difference between Iran, NK and current nuclear states.

So, apparently the motive really matters that much. Well, let's take two scenarios and compare results and motives...

1. Iran tries to commit holocaust v.2.0 and nuke Israel. So they kill a whole lot of Israeli citizens with nuclear warheads. A lot of people die, and it doesn't matter to them what the reason for their death was. Israel probably responds with counter-strike, because they are after all very predictable in that sense. A whole lot of Iranese people die because their leaders' genocidal lust for destruction, which some seem to think more or less probable (for the record, I don't, but it doesn't matter in this thought experiment). Not that the reasons matter any bit for them either.

2. US decides that it's necessary to force Kim-Jong Il to surrender his country and let US troops invade, so they nuke some North Korean cities. A lot of North Korean people die, and if Kim is nuts enough and he really has the bomb, he'll probably wipe out Söul in a counter strike. A lot of South Korean people die.

You get the picture? Both scenarios lead to same initial results - a whole lot of people die, and it doens't matter for them why they died. So, it all boils down to whether or not the worthiness of the cause justifies the means. I personally don't think so. In both cases, nuclear weapons invariably draw civilians into the game of politicians. It's sometimes acceptable that soldiers get involved in politicians' schemes, because that's their job and they have accepted it, but nuclear weapons cannot be used without drawing the civilians extensively to the conflict. And regardless of what the actual reason for the conflict is - be it leaders with genocidal ideas or leaders with the idea that every country should be free as long as they obey us - the dead civilians don't care, and surviving civilians probably care even less about the original cause.

So, why would it be less acceptable if Iran used a nuke compared to a possibility where some of the existing nuclear countries used a nuke?


*If the nuclear states would categorically refuse to use nukes in any situation, there would be no need to keep them in storage. Thus, because they do have them on storage, they must think that in some situation it's acceptable to use nukes, which is a profoundly chilling idea IMHO. Even more so because we have no chance of knowing what kind of situation would be deemed acceptable to use nukes in.

[aldo_14]

An aside for *; what the Us government thinks -

"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations"

d. Theater Nuclear Weapon Use

(1) Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include:

(a) An adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
(b) Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
(c) Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies.
(d) To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces, including mobile and area targets (troop concentration).
(e) For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.
(f) To ensure success of US and multinational operations.
(g) To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD.
(h) To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations.

note that b), c), e), f), and g) could have been used as pretexts for a nuclear strike on Iraq based on the US' pre-war statements.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well that's ****ing assuring...

[Mefustae]

Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.

But I didn't say anything about... did you press the 'Quote' button on the wrong post or something? If not, mind dumbing it down a notch?

Anyway, I stand by my usual opinion on this subject: So what if Iran and NK get the Bomb? The fact of the matter is that they're not exactly the psychotic mass-murderers the media tries to suggest. They don't want to spark an apocalyptic nuclear war any more than the rest of the club wants to. All they want is prestige and defense, and all this posturing by the likes of the US and EU is only going to make them desire the security and respect that comes with nukes that much more.

[TrashMan]

Good post Herra Tohtori..

I really do agree that there can NEVER EVER, EVER be any justification for mass murder of civilians.
Kill X innocents to save Y innocents just doesn't cut it, regardless the ratio.

I'd rather that I and my whole country die, then to bloody my hands and that of my country with the death of millions.
--------------

And yeah, there's not much you could do to stop those countries getting a Atom bombs sooner or later.

[Nuclear1]

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

You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.

Load of bull.

Iraq was a leaky faucet in the first place, but the US just happened to come in and knock it off with a hammer first.  As soon as Saddam would have passed without US intervention, the country would have been kneedeep in civil war, just like Yugoslavia. 

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.

Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered.  Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.

Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions.

You could call it terrorism to some extent, though I would more argue it was the US trying the only way possible to knock some sense into Japan's leadership.

I really do agree that there can NEVER EVER, EVER be any justification for mass murder of civilians.
Kill X innocents to save Y innocents just doesn't cut it, regardless the ratio.

War is ****, Trashman.  Innocent people die, regardless.  You shouldn't have to do something that results in the deaths of a large number of innocent people, but in some cases, it has to be done to do just exactly what you said:  save X number by causing the deaths of Y number.  As aldo and ngmt1r have told you, the US atomic bombings made up the least catastrophic strategy to end the war (at least in the long-term).

What you're being is extremely idealistic.  War shouldn't have to kill innocent people, but so long as war production factories and military bases are being built near and in heavily-populated cities and large urban areas are presenting military targets, it's going to happen.

[Mefustae]

Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions.

You could call it terrorism to some extent, though I would more argue it was the US trying the only way possible to knock some sense into Japan's leadership.

Mere semantics. The US was influencing Japanese leadership by intimidating them with a massive show of force. They played on the fear the Atomic Bombs created by threatening to keep using them until Japan surrendered. That is by definition terrorism:

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.   the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.   the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.   a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

It doesn't mean much beyond humerous irony, but to deny that the bombings weren't terrorism is to warp history to fit better with modern times.

[Kosh]

Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.

True, but then again the US ocupational authorities did setup and encourage the ****'te death squads that now roam the streets of Iraq. That is what has caused the civil war and basic hell that Iraq is now.

Iraq was a leaky faucet in the first place, but the US just happened to come in and knock it off with a hammer first.  As soon as Saddam would have passed without US intervention, the country would have been kneedeep in civil war, just like Yugoslavia

See above answer

[aldo_14]

Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.

True, but then again the US ocupational authorities did setup and encourage the ****'te death squads that now roam the streets of Iraq. That is what has caused the civil war and basic hell that Iraq is now.

Huh?  They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.  The cause of civil war and hell of  Iraq was nothing to do with Shia death squads - these are merely symptoms.  The cause was taking an oppressed majority and removing every form of both the oppressive force and the forces of law and order.

Good post Herra Tohtori..

I really do agree that there can NEVER EVER, EVER be any justification for mass murder of civilians.
Kill X innocents to save Y innocents just doesn't cut it, regardless the ratio.

I'd rather that I and my whole country die, then to bloody my hands and that of my country with the death of millions.

(NB: the death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about 210,000, including radiation.  Every month the war continued in Asia, 200,000 civillians died.  'Operation Starvation', the planned blockade of japan, was estimated that it would have killed around 10  million people by the time an invasion was completed; the invasion itself was calculated to cost 50,000 - 110,000 American combat deaths alone, with 3-4 times that many wounded and undoubtedly higher Japanese military and civillian casualties. Additionally, the Japanese war command had given an order to execute 100,000 Allied prisoners in the event of an invasion)

You are bloodying your hands - through neglect.  It's worse than dropping the bombs, because at least in doing something you show a backbone and responsibility; what you are proposing is simply washing your hands of any responsibility for the death of your own people.  Would you have stopped, say the US participating in World War 2?  Left France unliberated?  Never attacked Hitler in Germany or bombed German cities in the Western front because people could die?  Just sit back and let the world and your own people be subjugated rather than face a hard choice?

I've asked you this, umm, 4 or 5 times - would you have left Hitler in power rather than bomb, invade and eventually occupy Germany in 1945?

[Kosh]

Huh?  They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.

What I'm trying to say is that US decided to totally throw away the old state, which basically caused this to happen. The US is responsible for doing that, which basically give this field of dried brush a spark. Then they capitulate to the death squads which ethnically cleanse sunni neighborhoods, which is the same as pouring petrol on the brush fire.

[aldo_14]

Huh?  They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.

What I'm trying to say is that US decided to totally throw away the old state, which basically caused this to happen. The US is responsible for doing that, which basically give this field of dried brush a spark. Then they capitulate to the death squads which ethnically cleanse sunni neighborhoods, which is the same as pouring petrol on the brush fire.

you have to admit, surely, that there's rather a large semantic difference between stating the US failed to adequately plan or execute the occupation than that stating it actually created Death Squads, though.

[Kosh]

What I meant to say and what I said are two different things.......Scarey, that's what Bush is like.