America committed the worst terrorist acts in world history

[BartenderElite]

For not loving the America that has given you so much opportunity and freedom, and for not respecting the veterans who gave life and limb to make your level of dumbassery

possible without you getting arrested for it.

I 100% love America. And I am grateful to the brave men & women who serve & have served in our military every single day.

Where are you even getting that I don't?

Please. This thread is about the idea of using nuclear weapons against civilian populations. I'll put you down as "in favor."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think the vast majority would agree w/ your POV on that. I just really struggle w/ the fact that we're the only nation that has used nukes against civilians.

Historically, you have to recognize at the time nuclear weapons were seen as just a bigger better bomb, and nothing else. Where things get out of hand is when thermonuclear devices were invented. Those change everything.

That's the Castle Bravo thermonuclear test crater from the 1950's. It's over a mile wide. It took out all the electric power in Hawaii nearly a thousand miles away. It was more than 1000 times as violent as the Hiroshima bomb (~ 15 megatons vs. 15 kilotons).

Those are bombs that should never be used, but they exist. I figure they're like chemical weapons in WW 2. Everybody knew better than to use them, but everybody had them.

On the other hand, for crazy there's the "nuclear hand grenade"

This weapon deployed in the 50's and 60's by the US was literally a nuclear hand grenade. Three guys in a jeep deployed it to the field. The yield was 1 to 5 kt or about a third or less of a Hiroshima bomb.

These were deployed in the hundreds in Europe in particular during that time. During the Berlin Crisis (JFK) they were actually deployed to the field for live fire use around W. Berlin. Luckly, not one of the dozens of crews decided to lob theirs into E. Germany or some perceived Soviet position with the resulting mushroom cloud...

 

[BartenderElite]

Historically, you have to recognize at the time nuclear weapons were seen as just a bigger better bomb, and nothing else. Where things get out of hand is when thermonuclear devices were invented. Those change everything.

That's the Castle Bravo thermonuclear test crater from the 1950's. It's over a mile wide. It took out all the electric power in Hawaii nearly a thousand miles away. It was more than 1000 times as violent as the Hiroshima bomb (~ 15 megatons vs. 15 kilotons).

Those are bombs that should never be used, but they exist. I figure they're like chemical weapons in WW 2. Everybody knew better than to use them, but everybody had them.

Truly appreciate you discussing this in a civil manner. And I don't entirely disagree w/ your argument here, but again, simply struggle w/ the idea of what we did. It was total "ends justify the means," which is a dangerous place to be, in any situation.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Truly appreciate you discussing this in a civil manner. And I don't entirely disagree w/ your argument here, but again, simply struggle w/ the idea of what we did. It was total "ends justify the means," which is a dangerous place to be, in any situation.

I have made a lifetime study of war--military history--and have come to accept that war is a horror, but when you are in one you fight to win. Anything less is stupid. Too often our politicians are stupid and that results in far worse wars than if they were committed to winning from the start.

 

[Flash]

Yes, nothing worse than violating morality when killing someone.

Killing civilians with a 500 pound bomb is no more moral than killing them with an atomic bomb in the eyes of the dead civilian. If you are unwilling to commit immoral acts in a war you might as well just surrender. Is your enemy moral?

 

[BidenPresident]

Killing civilians with a 500 pound bomb is no more moral than killing them with an atomic bomb in the eyes of the dead civilian. If you are unwilling to commit immoral acts in a war you might as well just surrender. Is your enemy moral?

As Patton said. I don't want you to die for your country, I want you to kill the enemy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As Patton said. I don't want you to die for your country, I want you to kill the enemy.

This quote from Clauswitz (On War) is closer to the truth.

We are not interested in generals who win victories without bloodshed. The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.

 

[Matt Dillon]

As Patton said. I don't want you to die for your country, I want you to kill the enemy.

That's not bad!

 

[Flash]

For what?

Opposing the idea of vaporizing innocents?

The use of the atomic bomb proved when only one nation has the bomb it is more likely to be used. Since other nations got the bomb MAD has resulted in nobody else using it.

 

[BartenderElite]

That's not bad!

See that? This isn't a "bad" thread. It brought out some good discussion, and interesting history. And it DID NOT disparage, one iota, the brave men & women in our military.

Some of the responses genuinely made me think. I will never change my opinion on dropping those bombs, but I appreciate the debate & opposing points of view on it.

 

[BartenderElite]

The use of the atomic bomb proved when only one nation has the bomb it is more likely to be used. Since other nations got the bomb MAD has resulted in nobody else using it.

Positives came out of it. It ended a war.

But to me, that still doesn't make it right.

 

[Matt Dillon]

See that? This isn't a "bad" thread. It brought out some good discussion, and interesting history. And it DID NOT disparage, one iota, the brave men & women in our military.

Some of the responses genuinely made me think. I will never change my opinion on dropping those bombs, but I appreciate the debate & opposing points of view on it.

No. This thread is bad. That was a good post in a bad thread. Umm, yeah!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

More people were killed in firebombings of Tokyo than at Hiroshima. Hint to Japan and Germany: Don't start fucking wars.

FWIW, I disagree that America is the worst terrorist in history. American families lost 405,399 dead and 670,846 wounded in less than four years of war. By comparison, Americans lost 1,833 dead in 10 years of war in Afghanistan and 4,424 dead in 8 years of Iraq. America's WWII casualties average about 800 per day. This doesn't count all the casualties on the other side and among allies. Any leader would be irresponsible to let the war continue one additional day when there was a tool to end the war.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

 

[Flash]

Positives came out of it. It ended a war.

But to me, that still doesn't make it right.

Neither is war. Putin is a great example.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

Japan was going to have a horrific death toll either way it worked.

We could have simply starved them out I suppose or invaded and slaughtered millions but we did need to test the bomb also.

They weren't going to surrender.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Would you be in favor of using nukes against civilians again if it ended a war more quickly?

I just believe the U.S. needs to stand for something greater. How can we claim any kind of moral superiority when we've done one of the most immoral things a nation can do?

The rape of Nanking, area 731

They kind of deserved what they got.

 

[IBDaMann]

I said what I said.

Profound.

If you think those bombings were justified - you support terrorism.

Bombing, during war? Let's play a round of "Guess who doesn't know what 'terrorism' means?"

There is no spinning that.

... but you are trying. It is not the case that everything is terrorism. I'm surprised you didn't also call it "RACISM!" Color me surprised.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I had an international law professor who would say "all is fair in love." When people added "and war" he would respond "no, we have international law for war."

He was wrong. My saying of The only real war crime is losing is closer to the truth. Do you think that Japanese and German leaders and others in those nations that committed "war crimes" would have been tried if they had won? Not a chance. They'd likely be hailed as heroes and paragons of society.

The winners get to choose what happens to the losers, not the other way around...

 

[Flash]

He was wrong. My saying of The only real war crime is losing is closer to the truth. Do you think that Japanese and German leaders and others in those nations that committed "war crimes" would have been tried if they had won? Not a chance. They'd likely be hailed as heroes and paragons of society.

The winners get to choose what happens to the losers, not the other way around...

Agree, although in practice they often follow certain conventions and principles to make it more humane. Only the winners get to impose those laws, but the fact that German and Japanese leaders were tried and punished illustrates those laws exist and are often followed. We even try our own soldiers for war crimes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Agree, although in practice they often follow certain conventions and principles to make it more humane. Only the winners get to impose those laws, but the fact that German and Japanese leaders were tried and punished illustrates those laws exist and are often followed. We even try our own soldiers for war crimes.

Most of the time, both sides agree to a set of rules they arbitrarily set by 'gentleman's agreement.' This is done to limit the amount of destruction the other side can wreak. During WW 2, nobody wanted to use gas in warfare even though the weapon was in plentiful supply.

As for trying our own soldiers, most often we do this for what would be crimes in the civilian world or our society, far more than for genuine 'war crimes.' That is you are more likely to be punished for murder, rape, and the like in wartime than for pillaging or shooting POW's at the front. For example, desertion in wartime is seen as less significant than raping a civilian in the US military. This has changed some in the last few decades, but it still holds true.

The Germans and Japanese in the WW 2 era held desertion as a far more significant crime than murder. Their laws of war as applied to their own troops were far harsher for failing to do military stuff than they were about breaking what would normally be a civilian law.