Only meaningful use of nukes was against the population centers of Japan.

This appears to be only way they can do any good militarily.

The plans to use them against other targets - do they make any sense?

es

Your parents ?

Still having difficulties posting something more substantial than insults?

Paaa leeeeeeeeeez

Did you read the its post ? LOL

He asks a question to stimulate discussion. You merely insult.

You could have written about the function of deterrence usually associated with nuclear weapons, or the usage of nuclear weapons to knock out electronics in a large area for instance.

Instead you merely insult.

yet again.

Only meaningful use of nukes was against the population centers of Japan.

This appears to be only way they can do any good militarily.

The plans to use them against other targets - do they make any sense?

es

The use of nukes against Japan was hardly meaningful or good. In fact, that was the worst attack of man on man in the history of civilization. Not only did we launch an attack on man, we attacked nature also. Suffice it to say that when man inherited the Earth, he immediately waged war on man and nature. It remains to be seen which one will destroy him first.

On the news, there has been talk of actually using these "tactical nuclear weapons" in Iran. I was absultely terrified upon hearing this speculation on national TV. I think the rationale is that we have so many of them, we mise well use them.

Look, it doesn't make since. There is an old proverb, "what goes around comes around", "treat others the way you wish to be treated" If we start using these weapons on others, the guess what? Someone will use it on us and it will be completely justified. Not to mention the irreparable damage that these weapons do to our already struggling and destitute environment. Does nature deserve to suffer from our disagreements and our war mongering ways? Really, nature doesn't. The people in other countries don't either. This is certainly most unwise.

artismosi, check who is speculating on using nukes, the liberals, they are the Chicken littles of our time, they love to have all these scarry senairos so they have something to talk about, and if you check out the plans for the invasion of Japan at the least one million casualties were avoided, the estimates that I have read called for 1,000,000 wonded and dead, and if you do any studie of these estimates generaly run low by 50%, the war had to be conclueded with the removal of the military leadership who started it, and the only thing that finnally convinced the Emperor to act was the Atomic weapons, remember the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7th, 1941 in a sneak attack like the terroist did on Sep.11, 2001, both with out warning, but at least the Japanese hit military targets!

He asks a question to stimulate discussion. You merely insult.

You could have written about the function of deterrence usually associated with nuclear weapons, or the usage of nuclear weapons to knock out electronics in a large area for instance.

Instead you merely insult.

yet again.

Who the fuck are you trying to impress ?? The it made no sense what so ever. But you keep patting yourself on the back for being above all that.

As Spurious said, nukes can be used for deterrence, and for that, the attacks on japanese cities by the USA in World War 2 make the nukes the US still posseses today even more valuable. It shows that they used them once, and not even tactical nukes but pure weapons of mass destruction, and might well use them again, perhaps not in that scale, but than again, it was the biggest demonstration of military power, was it not? And surely the USA was recognized as a world power beyond doubt at that point.

Of course, I would never say it was morally right, nonetheless, that gave a longlasting tactical advantage, and a very good picture of what might happen when a country with nuclear weapons is challenged or provoked.

And those tactical nuclear weapons employed today also have a very practical aspect for the military, they can create a big force (explosion) and knock out electronic devices all in one, while still being more compact than traditional explosives. To this, the sheer image of previous employments of nuclear weapons must be added, and thus, those things are quite effective for the military, and, of course, for the government or political groupings.

artismosi, check who is speculating on using nukes, the liberals, they are the Chicken littles of our time, they love to have all these scarry senairos so they have something to talk about]

agreed


, and if you check out the plans for the invasion of Japan at the least one million casualties were avoided, the estimates that I have read called for 1,000,000 wonded and dead

You're missing the point. The reason we won the war is because we had the nukes and they didn't. Also, the nuclear weapons didn't only kill people, they completely destroyed ever inkling of nature in hiroshima and nagasaki. We were up against a formidable advisary in Japan. Trust me, no one wanted to fight the Japanese after seeing what they did in China. They had a formidable and state-of-the-art army. However, the US took a HUGE risk in dropping those weapons. No one really knew what the outcome would be. The ends doesn't justify the means. The end is that Japan surrendered and we didn't have to fight a bloody war like the Russians did against the Germans to outz the blitzkrieg. Pearl harbor wasn't a terroist act. That was war. When you are at war, there are casualitites. Americans seem to have forgetten that. We seem to think only our advisaries should perish. That is not the case. In any war, there are casualties on both side. If we engage Iran, there will be casualties. The dropping of the nuclear weapon was the greatest act of destruction of one man on another man as well as man against nature. It sent a clear message: war is no longer man v.s. man but cutting edge v.s. man (i.e. the radiation after the blast is a natural effect that kills people LONG after the bomb is dropped and renders the land barren and useless). Just imagine it, okay. Dropping an nuclear bomb on people is like taking a can of ant killer and killing an entire colony of defenseless ants. You don't know who you're killing. Everyone in Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't soldiers, ya know.



, and if you do any studie of these estimates generaly run low by 50%, the war had to be conclueded with the removal of the military leadership who started it, and the only thing that finnally convinced the Emperor to act was the Atomic weapons, remember the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7th, 1941 in a sneak attack like the terroist did on Sep.11, 2001, both with out warning, but at least the Japanese hit military targets!

So, you advocate completely obliterating parts of the planet whenever there is the threat of losing war. What if Iran was winning a war against the US? Would you nuke the middle east? Behold, a world full of war mongers.

As Spurious said, nukes can be used for deterrence, and for that, the attacks on japanese cities by the USA in World War 2 make the nukes the US still posseses today even more valuable.


Actually, nukes have little value. Here's why. When you are a country with weapons this powerful, your tactical advantage lies in the fact that other countries do not possess them. Therefore, strategically, you must live in constant paranoia and a constant state of war. Also, you must spend vast sums on intelligence to ensure that other countries aren't making them. Having nukes, therefore, leaves you in constant paranoia. Another county only has to have 1 or 2 of these weapons to be a threat and even the balance of power, whereas, before nuclear weapons a large and advance army was hard to come by and took lots of money and training to develop.

It is only a matter of time before other countries get nukes in which case they will be of little value. They will no longer be a deterrent. As a rule, it is impossible to use nuclear weapons on a country that possesses nuclear weapons in war. It is AMORAL to use nuclear weapons at all. Not only is the loss of human life catostrophic. The destruction to the environment is even worse. I fail to see the value in nuclear weapons.


And those tactical nuclear weapons employed today also have a very practical aspect for the military, they can create a big force (explosion) and knock out electronic devices all in one, while still being more compact than traditional explosives. To this, the sheer image of previous employments of nuclear weapons must be added, and thus, those things are quite effective for the military, and, of course, for the government or political groupings.

How do you know that these weapons are practical? Have you ever had one used against you?

The use of nukes against Japan was hardly meaningful ... Someone will use it on us and it will be completely justified... This is certainly most unwise.
According to your logic, "someone" would be "justified" already. but it is not how the world works. Japan is our friend.

I say, use them to the fullest, or do not use at all.

es

Actually, nukes have little value. .. It is AMORAL to use nuclear weapons at all. Not only is the loss of human life catostrophic. The destruction to the environment is even worse. I fail to see the value in nuclear weapons.
Did you consider alternative?
Even a little small war like in Iraq, dragging for years, produces destruction and environment damage, which is probably much higher than would be from short nuclear attack.

es

The big-assed nukes of the old days are really not good for much. You get a big boom, a fantastic propaganda defeat. But you'll still hit what you were aiming for - which was the rationale back in the day - nowadays we have tomahawk missiles and the like for that.

There have been tactical nukes for a long time. The east block was dependent on a massive amount of tanks and such to stage a fight in Europe. Nato could never mount a similar mass of forces. They had to adapt different strategies.

One was for instance the development of the A10 wharthog tankkiller. A simple airplane designed to kill as many tanks as possible, another tactic was small tactical nukes, to be deployed at massive concentrations of armour.

Artistmosi, I just went on a little trip through my computer to Hiroshima, the pictures show a very lovely city with many gardens, trees, flowers, animals, birds and humans, I did not see any mutations, the agriculture in the aeria seems to be flourishing, or are you stuck in a time warp in 1945, the world , mother nature, has a very great capacity to heal itself, mother nature herself has a great ability to do harm to there is a snake in the pacific called the Brown Tree Snake that has the ability to survive for long period, find any crack to hide in, and no natural enemies, it has wipe out 10 bird species, several bats spicies, and is now going after the ground dwelling skink, purtty good wipe out by mother nature don't you think, and not one bit of radiation, just Darwins theory of survival, And no we still would have won the war with out nuclear weapons, but at a much higher cost in human lives both Japanese and American, we had beaten our way to the very doorstep of Japan, and if not for The Nuclear Weapons WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO INVADE THE MAIN LAND ! and now you justify the loss of life that would have occured in doing so, how would you like to have been the person to write the letters to all the families that would have lost their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers........... Lives were saved, and nature repaired herself, with a little help from Man. Look at the reaconstruction, that the United States did in Japain to help them back from the war they started and we finished. Name another country so magnamious in history to it's defeated enemys as to reconstruct their nation for them!

Name another country so magnamious in history to it's defeated enemys as to reconstruct their nation for them!

The most important part of your post, IMO. And something many people overlook, Japan is a world super power now. The U.S. defeated them in a war, and then propped them up to become an economic powerhouse with a less opressive society. I would even venture to say that Japan is better off having lost the war.

The big-assed nukes of the old days are really not good for much. You get a big boom, a fantastic propaganda defeat. But you'll still hit what you were aiming for - which was the rationale back in the day - nowadays we have tomahawk missiles and the like for that. See, you clearly misstate the "rationale". It was to defeat the will of enemy.
The small nukes only are not going to do that.

es

Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, hopfully even if Iran gets nukes they wont use them because to do so would be to have some one use them against them.
When the Soviets and USA were locked in the cold war the nuclear weapons each state had put the states into a state of mutually assured destruction (or pleasingly M.A.D for short.) Where by if one state attacked the other both nation states would be completely destroyed.

See, you clearly misstate the "rationale". It was to defeat the will of enemy.- In other words: a form of terrorism?

Artistmosi, I just went on a little trip through my computer to Hiroshima, the pictures show a very lovely city with many gardens, trees, flowers, animals, birds and humans, I did not see any mutations, the agriculture in the aeria seems to be flourishing, or are you stuck in a time warp in 1945

You are completely missing my point. It has been 50 years since the bomb was dropped. What are you? An expert. Obviously, the effects of the nuclear bomb are still there - its in the evironment and in the people. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there. Show me something saying that all of the environmental and genetic effects of the nuclear bomb have disappeared after only 50 years and I'll shut up. My intuition tells me there are still deformed babies being born and other effects on the environment.

The point I was making is a philosophical one. When one is about to lose a war or does not want to fight one, is it okay to drop weapons of mass destructions on their countries cities, killing civilians and obliterating our planet? Are you saying its okay since in 50 years or perhaps a century we won't notice the effects?

Of course, I'm glad the US won the war. But I'm sure you've heard the saying that history is written by whoever wins the war. Powerful countries seek world conquest. It's a fact of history. This is precisely what the US is doing now, but in a very smart, deceptive, and saavy way. At the time, Germany and Japan were the super powers and the US worked hard to become one. The US won.


, the world , mother nature, has a very great capacity to heal itself, mother nature herself has a great ability to do harm to there is a snake in the pacific called the Brown Tree Snake that has the ability to survive for long period, find any crack to hide in, and no natural enemies, it has wipe out 10 bird species, several bats spicies, and is now going after the ground dwelling skink, purtty good wipe out by mother nature don't you think, and not one bit of radiation, just Darwins theory of survival,

Just think. A nuclear weapon destoys the air, the water, kills every living bird, plant, and thing and puts radiation in the air that causes cancer and genetic deformations. All in a matter of minutes. That not nature. That's human stupidity. These weapons should not be in the hands of warmongers such as us. Just think... would our supreme being (if you believe in one) allow us to have such weapons if we were not meant to use them again?

This is the philosophy of people, in my opinion. If you are about to lose, nuke your advisary. This is why the US must be at constant alert of what every other country is doing.

Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, hopfully even if Iran gets nukes they wont use them because to do so would be to have some one use them against them.
When the Soviets and USA were locked in the cold war the nuclear weapons each state had put the states into a state of mutually assured destruction (or pleasingly M.A.D for short.) Where by if one state attacked the other both nation states would be completely destroyed.

No. As a rule, two countries possessing nuclear weapons of mass destruction cannot fight. If Iran had even 2 nuclear weapons in which to attack the US, we could not go to war with them. To do so would be equivalent to suicide.

On the topic of after effects of the hiroshima nuclear bomb:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext96/abomb10.txt
One of the most important tasks assigned to the mission which investigated
the effects of the bombing was that of determining if the radiation effects
were all due to the instantaneous discharges at the time of the explosion,
or if people were being harmed in addition from persistent radioactivity.
This question was investigated from two points of view. Direct
measurements of persistent radioactivity were made at the time of the
investigation. From these measurements, calculations were made of the
graded radiation dosages, i.e., the total amount of radiation which could
have been absorbed by any person. These calculations showed that the
highest dosage which would have been received from persistent radioactivity
at Hiroshima was between 6 and 25 roentgens of gamma radiation; the highest
in the Nagasaki Area was between 30 and 110 roentgens of gamma radiation.
The latter figure does not refer to the city itself, but to a localized
area in the Nishiyama District. In interpreting these findings it must be
understood that to get these dosages, one would have had to remain at the
point of highest radioactivity for 6 weeks continuously, from the first
hour after the bombing. It is apparent therefore that insofar as could be
determined at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the residual radiation alone could
not have been detrimental to the health of persons entering and living in
the bombed areas after the explosion.

The second approach to this question was to determine if any persons not in
the city at the time of the explosion, but coming in immediately afterwards
exhibited any symptoms or findings which might have been due to persistence
induced radioactivity. By the time of the arrival of the Manhattan
Engineer District group, several Japanese studies had been done on such
persons. None of the persons examined in any of these studies showed any
symptoms which could be attributed to radiation, and their actual blood
cell counts were consistently within the normal range. Throughout the
period of the Manhattan Engineer District investigation, Japanese doctors
and patients were repeatedly requested to bring to them any patients who
they thought might be examples of persons harmed from persistent
radioactivity. No such subjects were found.

It was concluded therefore as a result of these findings and lack of
findings, that although a measurable quantity of induced radioactivity was
found, it had not been sufficient to cause any harm to persons living in
the two cities after the bombings.

some contradictory stuff:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hiroshima.htm
* On August 6th 1945, the Enola Gay, a USA bomber, dropped a bomb called "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. For extracts from the plane's flight log - click here
* 80,000 people were killed instantly
* Out of the city’s 55 hospitals, only 3 were usable after the blast
* 90% of all doctors and nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured
* Radiation claimed many more lives after the bomb was dropped
* 48,000 out of 76,000 buildings were destroyed
* The initial heat blast was 900 times hotter than the sun
* Bodies were vapourised underneath the bomb blast
* By 1950, 200,000 people had died as a result of the bomb
* Between 1950 and 1980, a further 97,000 people died from cancers associated with the radiation caused by "Little Boy"
* On August 9th 1945, the bomber "Bockspur" dropped "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. Once again, the final number of deaths was over 200,000

Some more:
http://www.solarstorms.org/Hiroshima.html

An actual reference book on the matter for those who are interested.
An excellent reference for all manner of questions regarding the A-bomb survivors is the book by William J Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Wiley-Liss, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012 (1995) ; ISBN # 0-471-12524-5. This is a scholarly book and yet is written at a level that the intelligent layperson can understand. It has a wealth of historical as well as scientific information about the studies, spanning the entire time period since the bombs were dropped.


Exposed individuals who survived the acute effects, however, were later found to suffer increased incidence of cancer of essentially all organs. The cancers occurred years to decades later. Excess cancers are still being detected in this population, now more than 50 years after the bombing. Excess cancer means that these individuals are more likely to get cancer than other Japanese. The cancers they get are in no way different from spontaneous cancer in other Japanese. Animal studies have detected genetic effects from these sublethal doses: mutations that occur in offspring, perhaps several generations later. No such effects have been detected in offspring of Japanese survivors. However, most mutations are recessive and require several generations to detect. The second generation of offspring of the Japanese is just now appearing.

Thanks for the info spurious! I'm confused now. One says


It was concluded therefore as a result of these findings and lack of
findings, that although a measurable quantity of induced radioactivity was
found, it had not been sufficient to cause any harm to persons living in
the two cities after the bombings.


And the other says


Radiation claimed many more lives after the bomb was dropped


If it is true that 80,000 people were killed instantly in 1945 and by 1950 200,000 people died as a result of the bomb, the clearly the second one is true. That means that 120,000 people died after the initial bombing (from injuries, radiation poisoning, and probably cancer). Also, if between 1950 and 1980 a further 97,000 people died then clearly the first one is wrong. How many more people died between 1980 and 2006? I'm inclined to believe the 2nd one. People had to have died from the radiation and environmental effects.

Isn't that a coincidence. Nature has a Chernobyl special.
http://www.nature.com/index.html
And there I found the "radiation effects research foundation". They research the effects of the nuclear bombs on nagasaki and Hiroshima. That must be the ultimate source for your question?
http://www.rerf.or.jp/
They have all kinds of info there, for instance a simple FAQ:
http://www.rerf.or.jp/top/qae.htm

For instance:
Question 1. How many persons perished in or survived the atomic bombings?

Estimated city population Estimated number of
City at the time of the bombings acute deaths
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Hiroshima 310,000 persons 90,000-140,000

Nagasaki 250,000 persons 60,000-80,000

Question 3. What is the relationship of radiation to cancer occurrence?

In addition to analyzing cancer mortality (deaths due to cancer), RERF analyzes data on cancer incidence obtained through the cancer registries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prefectures. Although mortality studies are valuable, the accuracy of cancer diagnoses from death certificates is limited and mortality studies provide little information about the occurrence of cancers with relatively high survival rates. Among 79,972 members of the Life Span Study cohort whose radiation doses were known, 8,613 first primary solid cancers were diagnosed between 1958 and 1987, about three-quarters with histological verification. Significant radiation associations were observed for stomach, colon, lung, breast, ovary, urinary bladder, thyroid, liver, and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Because factors other than radiation can increase the risk of cancer (such as smoking, certain chemicals, various viral and bacterial agents, and so on), RERF researchers are now examining individual types of cancer more carefully to determine what role radiation plays in the mechanism of cancer causation and how it might interact with these other cancer risk factors.

Question 12. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?

The practical answer is, "No."
..........
Although the levels of residual radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were initially high, they declined quickly and are now far less than the dose received from background radiation. Hence, there is no detectable effect of present-day residual radiation on human health. In fact, today both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities with large populations.

On Chernobyl:

Nature 440, 982-983 (20 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/440982a
Special Report: Counting the dead

The report also says that there has been no significant increase so far in the incidence of other cancers. In total, it said, "up to 4,000 people" may ultimately die as a direct result of the disaster — much lower than previous estimates.

Cardis is also about to publish a study of the pan-European impact. She concludes that, of 570 million people in Europe at the time, 16,000 will ultimately die as a result of the accident — 0.01% of all cancer deaths. But she says it will be virtually impossible to assess the ultimate death toll. Cancer causes about a quarter of all deaths in Europe, so weeding out those cases triggered by Chernobyl cannot be done with statistical confidence. "We'll never be able to say whether we were right or not," she says.
On a psychological level the problem however seems much much worse:
But she says the focus on the figure of 4,000 obscured a more important message of the report: that myths about the threat of radiation have created a "paralysing fatalism" among residents of affected areas.

Instead Vinton hopes that Chernobyl's legacy can be seen as a social problem. The UNDP says that Chernobyl's most serious impact was on the mental health of about 7 million people labelled as victims of the accident. Aid from the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine has created a culture of dependency, it argues, which may have encouraged exaggerated fears of ill-health.

Although much less casualties than in nagasaki and hiroshima the contamination problem is much larger in chernobyl:
The hottest spots will be radioactive for centuries. But the most prevalent isotope, caesium-137, has a half-life of about 30 years and scientists estimate that much of the abandoned area will become habitable over coming decades. The 30-kilometre exclusion zone around Chernobyl is likely to remain off limits. But the report suggests that in other evacuated areas roads should be rebuilt, and people encouraged to start farms and businesses.
As we have seen in the previous post Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not radioactive anymore (above background level).

Artistmosi, I wouldn't say a expert but I have been through the U.S, Army C.B.R. (Chemical, Biological, and Radiological,) schools and Nagasaki and Heroshima are used as real life examples, and the fact is that the levals of contamination have been no higher than back ground levals since the late 1960, The Chernobyl reactor is a totally different situation than Japan, there you had a exposed pile that remained exposed for most of a week, this allowed many time the radiation levals and particulate matter to be realeased than both bomb dropped on Japan. Most of a bombs radiation is realesed with the flash and unless you have a ground leval burst you do not get a lot of particulate raised into the atmospher. I could get really detailed if you want but most ot the details would be extreamly boreing.

Artistmosi, I wouldn't say a expert but I have been through the U.S, Army C.B.R. (Chemical, Biological, and Radiological,) schools and Nagasaki and Heroshima are used as real life examples, and the fact is that the levals of contamination have been no higher than back ground levals since the late 1960, The Chernobyl reactor is a totally different situation than Japan, there you had a exposed pile that remained exposed for most of a week, this allowed many time the radiation levals and particulate matter to be realeased than both bomb dropped on Japan. Most of a bombs radiation is realesed with the flash and unless you have a ground leval burst you do not get a lot of particulate raised into the atmospher. I could get really detailed if you want but most ot the details would be extreamly boreing.

Really man. What is your point? Are you saying because not much radiation is released into the air level that it is okay to use these weapons on people? It is not okay. Radiation will get in the air. It doesn't matter how much, it is going to kill people and pretty much every living plant and animal. Look at the facts that spurious posted. People died from cancer and radiation poisoning.

What are nukes good for?

Well, you can decorate your garden with those.
I think they were one of the most important inventions in the 20th century.

And not just a few people. And these were small nuclear bombs.

Only meaningful use of nukes was against the population centers of Japan.


Actually both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important to Japan's war effort, in addition to being population centers.


This appears to be only way they can do any good militarily.


The arms race between the USA and USSR changed all that. The reason the two countries built so many nukes was that the nuclear silos themselves became primary targets. It became a strategic priority on both sides to be able to withstand a first strike on our respective nuclear arsenals, and still have enough with which to strike back. That is exactly the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" that was adopted during the cold war.


The plans to use them against other targets - do they make any sense?


Well, we could use them to annihilate conventional military targets, but that would be like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. I think it would be morally unconscionable, but I wouldn't put it past our Commander in Chief. :mad:

Actually, nukes have little value. Here's why. When you are a country with weapons this powerful, your tactical advantage lies in the fact that other countries do not possess them. Therefore, strategically, you must live in constant paranoia and a constant state of war. Also, you must spend vast sums on intelligence to ensure that other countries aren't making them. Having nukes, therefore, leaves you in constant paranoia. Another county only has to have 1 or 2 of these weapons to be a threat and even the balance of power, whereas, before nuclear weapons a large and advance army was hard to come by and took lots of money and training to develop.

It is only a matter of time before other countries get nukes in which case they will be of little value. They will no longer be a deterrent. As a rule, it is impossible to use nuclear weapons on a country that possesses nuclear weapons in war. It is AMORAL to use nuclear weapons at all. Not only is the loss of human life catostrophic. The destruction to the environment is even worse. I fail to see the value in nuclear weapons.



I surely won't question that it is amoral to posses or even use nukes, also, I did not say that I support countries having nukes, I merely pointed out their use.
Furthermore, I would not say that nukes lose their value even when other countries aquire them, if that was the case, the USA, european states and Russia might have engaged in a war instead of just building more weapons, both sides did not want t obe targeted with nukes, it still worked as a deterrent. But of course, that is not something that will be true for ever, Israel for example has many enemies, some showing that quite freely, even though Israel does posses nuclear weapons.
Alas, for some countries they still work as deterrent.

The value of nukes...well, I would simply say destruction, like with all other weapons, but after some time, everything loses its menacing appeal I assume.



How do you know that these weapons are practical? Have you ever had one used against you?

Of course I had never had a tactical nuke used against me, would make it a bit difficult to post here, no? Still they have a pragmatic value, as I said, a conventional warhead with the same power would have to be much bigger, making it problematic to transport the nuke to its target. I would say it has the same use as shells made from depleted uranium, it enables you to destroy things that are armored/fortified much easier than with conventional weaponry.

I don't know, Japan was already defeated, the question was how many more lives would it take to convince them of the facts, remember their Code Of Bushido, they would rather die than loose face, to them if they died in combat it was a honorable way to go as long as you took some enemies with you, we had to show them that they would die and we wern't going to loose any more men to defeat them, the Emperor finally step in when he realised that the military was willing to suicide the whole country not to lose face. He never mentioned defeat, but informed the people to welcome the allies as you would friends.

Furthermore, I would not say that nukes lose their value even when other countries aquire them, if that was the case, the USA, european states and Russia might have engaged in a war instead of just building more weapons, both sides did not want t obe targeted with nukes, it still worked as a deterrent. But of course, that is not something that will be true for ever, Israel for example has many enemies, some showing that quite freely, even though Israel does posses nuclear weapons.
Alas, for some countries they still work as deterrent.

During the cold war, I was a kid and my family sat glued to the television in anticipation. Both countries were ready to use they weapons. They weren't deterred!! They were fully prepared to break the rule that I mentioned before about attacking another country that possesses nuclear weapons. These men were warriors; warmongers even. Do you think god (if you beleive in god, otherwise call it fate) would allow use to build this weapons without planning for use them. Come on! It's the same fate that allowed a meteor to crash into the Earth and obliterate the dinosaurs. If you were a dinosaur of that time, you would've said, those meteors are just deterring other things from hitting us. It's fine. That's okay though. It's not like you could stop a meteor anyway. It's not like we can stop the nuclear bombs from falling down on us. I don't quesiton that they will be used. On the worlds current path, I don't quesiton whether or not they will be used. It,s a question of when, how much damage will be done, and why.


The value of nukes...well, I would simply say destruction, like with all other weapons, but after some time, everything loses its menacing appeal I assume.

That's the thing about these weapons. They don't go away. As long as there are evil hearts in the world, they will have menacing appeal.


Of course I had never had a tactical nuke used against me, would make it a bit difficult to post here, no?

Honestly, I'm glad that they weren't used against you. If they had been used against you, you wouldn't consider them practical any longer. The most practical weapon: a knife, because then you only kill the people that you mean to kill.

"The use of nukes against Japan was hardly meaningful or good. In fact, that was the worst attack of man on man in the history of civilization."

Hardly, the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities killed more people. Pol Pot killed 1,000,000 of his own people- surely that is far more dreadfull. 800,000 Rwandans died recently, 6 Million Jews in WWII, the 25+Million people Stalin killed, Mao's cultural revolution, native americans (granted it took awhile but most of them were killed)..etc..etc...
Hiroshima was hardly the worst.

They work wonders for the Military. Instead of having to invade a city you just destroy it completely. It is true total war. Lets not forget that Stalingrad and Berlin looked much like Hiroshima- it just took longer using conventional weapons.

"Both countries were ready to use they weapons. They weren't deterred!!"
if that was the case they would have used them ;)

MAD is a crazy concept but it worked. Now with these crazies in Iran who like to die it wont work. So we might as well kill them.