How could US drop the a-bomb on Civilians?

[iceaura]

Oh, so instead of 250k people dying in the two bombings, you would much rather have millions of men women and children die in a prolonged war.

Utter bullshit - a level of self-delusion, if not simple dishonesty, that reveals the depths to which America has sunk in denial on this topic. It's poisoned this country, I think. As with racial matters (and there's an overlap), one cannot live well self-deceived like that.

Once the US had the bomb, there was never going to be an invasion of Japan - even if there would have been one otherwise, which is doubtful (Japan was facing massive starvation in the upcoming winter, because their railroads were blown and their sea lanes cut. And they were out of oil, with no way to get more). The choice under consideration was between surprise slaughter of two entire city populations before the Japanese had time to react to the news, and one of the several other ways of informing the Japanese that such weaponry now existed. Nobody was considering invading Japan, with atom bombs in the arsenal and complete control of the air and sea.

They prolonged the war by a couple of months at least, avoiding negotiations and carefully keeping the thing a secret, so they could drop at least two different bombs by surprise on cities full of people.

Quite a few American military died in those months when surrender negotiations in truce could have been taking place instead.

long ago, I had read that the 2nd bomb was dropped as a bargaining ploy for the attitudes of the USSR

So was the first.

And even after the second nuclear bomb was detonated on Japanese soil, Japanese soldiers were unwilling to surrender. They created a coup which was subsequently overthrown by the emperor.

The US had to move quickly to get the Nagasaki bomb dropped before the Japanese could surrender. The Japanese managed to get their entire war machine to surrender within ten days of Hiroshima - and it took three of those days just for the high command to find out what had happened and get a handle on the situation.

Of course the surrender terms had already been worked out by the Japanese, as part of their negotiating effort the US had been stonewalling, so they saved some time there - they ended up surrendering under almost exactly the same terms they had been trying to offer, so most of the work on their side was done.

And as others have pointed out, it wasn't the slaughter itself that cowed them - they had withstood massive bombing and hardship; it was the information, the news of the existence of this new weapon, that turned them. That information was available months before, without killing any children at all.

 

[joepistole]

Utter bullshit - a level of self-delusion, if not simple dishonesty, that reveals the depths to which America has sunk in denial on this topic. It's poisoned this country, I think. As with racial matters (and there's an overlap), one cannot live well self-deceived like that.

Once the US had the bomb, there was never going to be an invasion of Japan - even if there would have been one otherwise, which is doubtful (Japan was facing massive starvation in the upcoming winter, because their railroads were blown and their sea lanes cut. And they were out of oil, with no way to get more). The choice under consideration was between surprise slaughter of two entire city populations before the Japanese had time to react to the news, and one of the several other ways of informing the Japanese that such weaponry now existed. Nobody was considering invading Japan, with atom bombs in the arsenal and complete control of the air and sea.

They prolonged the war by a couple of months at least, avoiding negotiations and carefully keeping the thing a secret, so they could drop at least two different bombs by surprise on cities full of people.

Quite a few American military died in those months when surrender negotiations in truce could have been taking place instead.

So was the first.

LOL, as usual ICE you are totally divorced from reality. You suffer from a terminal case of metastasized bias. I don't suppose you can prove any of those claims? You keep peddling these conspiracy theories as well as any right wing whacko. The fact is people were dying every day the war dragged on. Japan was attacking US warships daily. Japan still had a 2 million man army. Japanese soldiers and civilians favored suicide over surrender. Few ever surrendered. What you are arguing for is prolonging WWII. You think prolonging the war would have been better. You just argued it would have been better to starve millions of Japanese men, women and children into surrender. You assume Japan would have surrendered. But you have absolutely no evidence to support that contention. In fact all the evidence says otherwise. Even after 2 nuclear detonations, the Japanese military was unwilling to surrender. You are advocating the bombing, shooting , stabbing, burning, dismemberment of men women and children of millions is more humane and preferable to the instantaneous vaporization of 250, 000 individuals. Well the US president chose the option that didn't involve the killing and maiming of millions of people.

 

[iceaura]

You assume Japan would have surrendered.

No, I don't. I observe they were given no chance to, and entire cities full of children were incinerated without warning instead.

The Hiroshima bomb exploded directly over the main hospital of the region, within initial blast range of an elementary school.

You think prolonging the war would have been better.

I think the war might have been shortened by months if the US had employed the Bomb as a negotiation lever.

And I think the US was morally and ethically obligated to present that opportunity.

And I think the US was tragically and destructively wrong in not doing so, that the country was seriously harmed and still suffers from its actions then, where it could have taken a position of political leadership and honor and influence as the world has never seen.

You just argued it would have been better to starve millions of Japanese men, women and children into surrender.

No, I pointed out that your overheated yak about full scale military invasion was delusion. The US had many choices other than mass incineration of two cities's civilian populations vs full scale military invasion of the home islands of Japan.

But you have absolutely no evidence to support that contention. In fact all the evidence says otherwise. Even after 2 nuclear detonations, the Japanese military was unwilling to surrender.

Actually, the Japanese surrendered almost immediately after they found out the US had atom bombs. A couple of high level Generals wanted to hold out, but were directly overruled. They didn't delay at all.

So that is evidence that they might have surrendered fairly quickly after being informed, or having had demonstrated to them (Japanese observers at Trinity, say, or a demo explosion at an unpopulated location), that the US had atom bombs. Because they did, see? You are the one claiming that merely slaughtering people, or massive air raid destruction and death, was not enough to sway their crazed and suicidal Oriental fanaticism; OK, then it was the news of the Bomb that did it. That news was available months before, and deliverable without mass slaughter of schoolchildren by surprise.

 

[spidergoat]

They would not have believed us.

 

[joepistole]

No, I don't. I observe they were given no chance to, and entire cities full of children were incinerated without warning instead.

OH, yes you did. You need to beef on your history. You might want to actually read prior posts on this thread. Japan was warned. There had been surrender discussions prior to the detonations of the nuclear bombs. The talks failed and the Japan did not heed the warning issued by President Truman. And leaflets were dropped. I suggest you actually read them.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

No The Hiroshima bomb exploded directly over the main hospital of the region, within initial blast range of an elementary school.

And even if this is true, how is that relevant? I hate to tell you this, but they didn’t have precision weapon systems back then Ice. That is how wars were fought. Japan indiscriminately bombed the US with balloon bombs which killed one pregnant woman and five children. Civilians died in Allied and Axis air raids in Europe. It is how war was fought back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

I think the war might have been shortened by months if the US had employed the Bomb as a negotiation lever.

It did deploy the nuclear bomb as a negotiating tool and it did shorten the war. Do you really think Japan would have taken our word for it that we had a nuclear weapon without proof? If you do, then your are even more naïve than I give you credit for.

And I think the US was morally and ethically obligated to present that opportunity.

The US did give warning and the opportunity as previously proven.

And I think the US was tragically and destructively wrong in not doing so, that the country was seriously harmed and still suffers from its actions then, where it could have taken a position of political leadership and honor and influence as the world has never seen. No, I pointed out that your overheated yak about full scale military invasion was delusion. The US had many choices other than mass incineration of two cities's civilian populations vs full scale military invasion of the home islands of Japan.

Overheated…..seriously? Facts are not overheated, they are just facts Ice. You may find them unpleasant. But that doesn’t mean they are overheated. The unpleasant facts are every day the war continued people were dying. The facts are Japan had no intention of surrendering. The facts are a military invasion of Japan would have been very expensive. It would have cost the lives of millions - mostly Japanese. But you would rather we starve them, shoot them, stab them, burn them, and blow them up using conventional bombs rather than use the nuclear bombs in our arsenal. You think that is somehow more humane.

Actually, the Japanese surrendered almost immediately after they found out the US had atom bombs. A couple of high level Generals wanted to hold out, but were directly overruled. They didn't delay at all.

Thanks for making my point. Terms for Japanese surrender were announced in Potsdam earlier that year. Japan didn’t surrender. Japan didn’t surrender after one nuclear weapon had been deployed. It took two nuclear detonations to get the emperor to surrender and even then his military revolted with an attempted coup. Those “couple of generals” did more than object. They formed a coup and took over the radio station and the imperial palace and had to be forcibly overthrown by generals loyal to the emperor. They were “overruled” by the barrel of a gun and committed suicide.

And I point out once again; it took two nuclear detonations to drive home the point, not one.

Actually So that is evidence that they might have surrendered fairly quickly after being informed, or having had demonstrated to them (Japanese observers at Trinity, say, or a demo explosion at an unpopulated location), that the US had atom bombs. Because they did, see? You are the one claiming that merely slaughtering people, or massive air raid destruction and death, was not enough to sway their crazed and suicidal Oriental fanaticism; OK, then it was the news of the Bomb that did it. That news was available months before, and deliverable without mass slaughter of schoolchildren by surprise.

So you think the US should have invited Japanese observers to Trinity which occurred about two months prior to the first nuclear bomb would have convinced Japan? You have no evidence of that. Two, what if Trinity failed? How convincing would that have been? And what part of Japan is unpopulated?

Reading your posts is a bit confusing because your “logic” is so fluid. It courses back and forth without reason. First you argue the US should have “starved” out the Japanese with an embargo. Though the Japanese are food self-sufficient, so I don’t know how you can think an embargo will starve them out unless you are advocating the US should have destroyed Japan’s food distributions system, and I don’t know how one would do that. Then you argue the US should have just been nice and give Japan more time and let them know we have a nuclear weapon by giving them demonstrations. Well, even after one nuclear detonation on their soil and written and verbal warnings of another, Japan didn’t surrender. It took another detonation and the overthrow of a subsequent Japanese coup to get Japan to surrender.

LOL, “their crazed and suicidal Oriental fanaticism”, nice try, but Japanese refusal to surrender and willingness to die in battle is legendary. It’s another one of those pesky facts Ice. American experiences fighting Japan in the Pacific drove home to American leaders how fiercely Japanese troops fought. The Battle for Okinawa was a good example of what America would face in a land invasion of Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Civilian_losses.2C_suicides_and_atrocities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge

It's another of those pesky facts you like to ignore.

 

[iceaura]

They would not have believed us.

1) So? Nothing lost, then. We still wouldn't have to burn children to demo it. 2) Their physicists would have - hand them the relevant yield equations and a couple of photos. Or better yet, invite a few "embassy" folks to watch a Hiroshima design demo in, what, May of that year? Something like that.

Japan was warned. There had been surrender discussions prior to the detonations of the nuclear bombs. The talks failed and the Japan did not heed the warning issued by President Truman. And leaflets were dropped. I suggest you actually read them.

The bomb was kept secret. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that. The Japanese were not warned about the Bomb.

Secret, the Bomb. Japanese not told. Big secret. Nobody tell. Huge big weapon end war, keep secret for months and months, tell nobody, surprise Japanese, big big surprise, immediate surrender.

Do I need to repeat that? At no time did anyone from the US inform Japan that the US had invented an atomic bomb. Japan was not warned about the atomic bomb, despite the USA knowing for months that it had them and US authorities believing that they would end the war as soon as Japan found out about them.

No The Hiroshima bomb exploded directly over the main hospital of the region, within initial blast range of an elementary school.
And even if this is true, how is that relevant?

It's the thread topic. If you care.

If Truman had been tried at Nuremburg, he might have been hanged by the neck until dead for that. It's not like he could claim accident or the confusion of war.

Two, what if Trinity failed? How convincing would that have been?

So demo with the Hiroshima design - a sure thing - months before Trinity, and maybe end the war even sooner.

And what part of Japan is unpopulated?

Lots of rural, mountainous, island, snowcovered northern, etc. Top of Mount Fuji. Also, any part you have cleared by agreement - the Japanese physicists will back up the necessity, having seen the yield equations.

Facts are not overheated, they are just facts Ice. You may find them unpleasant. But that doesn’t mean they are overheated.

Your posts do not contain relevant facts. They contain overheated bullshit.

The unpleasant facts are every day the war continued people were dying. The facts are Japan had no intention of surrendering.

Anmd yet they did surrender, just as expected, as soon as they found out about the Bomb.

The facts are a military invasion of Japan would have been very expensive. It would have cost the lives of millions - mostly Japanese. But you would rather we starve them, shoot them, stab them, burn them, and blow them up using conventional bombs rather than use the nuclear bombs in our arsenal. You think that is somehow more humane.

You seem unable to read English, but I will try again:

The US had several options available after the physicists told Truman the bomb had been designed, was ready to drop, and would definitely work (this was the Hiroshima design, months before Trinity testing of the Nagasaki design - the Hiroshima bomb was so simple that it was never tested, just built and dropped.) All but one of those options might well have shortened the war by weeks or months - the one chosen involved the longest delay, as the bomb was kept secret while all negotiations for surrender were trashed and the Nagasaki design was built and tested.

Every other option would have possibly shortened the war, substantially. If you are concerned about prolonging the war, notice that keeping the Bomb secret until there were two designs to try out on Japanese schoolchildren, while refusing to use it to negotiate surrender with Japan, prolonged the war by weeks or months.

And I point out once again; it took two nuclear detonations to drive home the point, not one

That isn't true. You keep asserting falsehoods, about the history, my posting, everything. The US rushed Nagasaki, deliberately, giving the Japanese insufficient time to surrender. After Nagasaki, which was the second design they wanted to try out on a city full of people, they were happy to wait a normal amount of time - and Japan surrendered as fast as a country could have after Hiroshima.

So you think the US should have invited Japanese observers to Trinity which occurred about two months prior to the first nuclear bomb would have convinced Japan? You have no evidence of that.

After telling them about the Bomb a few months prior (when the Hiroshima design was finalized), if that info were not enough, why not have them watch Trinity? Just pointing to some of the many options the US had that did not involve burning hundreds of children alive.

You are ignoring both common sense and the actual sequence of events, which provide evidence not only that the Japanese surrendered as soon as they found out about the Bomb but that the US thought it likely that they would - so likely that they kept the Bomb a secret for months after initial development, and rushed the Nagasaki drop. Everyone involved thought the knowledge of the Bomb probably would force surrender on Japan - so deciding when and how to impart that knowledge was the issue they faced.

LOL, “their crazed and suicidal Oriental fanaticism”, nice try, but Japanese refusal to surrender and willingness to die in battle is legendary. It’s another one of those pesky facts Ice. American experiences fighting Japan in the Pacific drove home to American leaders how fiercely Japanese troops fought. The Battle for Okinawa was a good example of what America would face in a land invasion of Japan.

1) and yet they surrendered, as expected, as soon as they found out about teh Bomb. 2) Why are you still yakking on and on about a land invasion of Japan, and soldiers fighting? That option was not on the table. You've been told that now several times - do you really think the US military would have invaded Japan with the Bomb handy?

As far as surrendering as soon as they found out about the Bomb, the US was so sure of that they rushed the Nagasaki bomb - hit a secondary target rather than wait a couple days for the weather to clear over the primary. The US didn't want to risk not getting to drop it.

 

[Seattle]

which town in N.C.?

Goldsboro.

 

[spidergoat]

1) So? Nothing lost, then. We still wouldn't have to burn children to demo it. 2) Their physicists would have - hand them the relevant yield equations and a couple of photos. Or better yet, invite a few "embassy" folks to watch a Hiroshima design demo in, what, May of that year? Something like that.

We should have handed over the secrets of the bomb? We didn't even think the soviets had them back then, there's no way we would give them to the Japanese. Photos can be doctored, and a test on our own soil could be faked with large amounts of TNT. They had to be nuked into submission and you shouldn't feel bad about it.

 

[joepistole]

1) So? Nothing lost, then. We still wouldn't have to burn children to demo it. 2) Their physicists would have - hand them the relevant yield equations and a couple of photos. Or better yet, invite a few "embassy" folks to watch a Hiroshima design demo in, what, May of that year? Something like that.
The bomb was kept secret. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that. The Japanese were not warned about the Bomb.

Secret, the Bomb. Japanese not told. Big secret. Nobody tell. Huge big weapon end war, keep secret for months and months, tell nobody, surprise Japanese, big big surprise, immediate surrender.

Do I need to repeat that? At no time did anyone from the US inform Japan that the US had invented an atomic bomb. Japan was not warned about the atomic bomb, despite the USA knowing for months that it had them and US authorities believing that they would end the war as soon as Japan found out about them.
It's the thread topic. If you care.

What you cannot read? I suggest you go back and read my previous posts, pay particular attention to the NPR link. Further, there is no, absolutely no evidence, Japan would surrender if they had knowledge of the nuclear bomb. Certainly Japan knew of the bomb after deployment of the first bomb and they didn't surrender.

If Truman had been tried at Nuremburg, he might have been hanged by the neck until dead for that. It's not like he could claim accident or the confusion of war.

So demo with the Hiroshima design - a sure thing - months before Trinity, and maybe end the war even sooner. Lots of rural, mountainous, island, snowcovered northern, etc. Top of Mount Fuji. Also, any part you have cleared by agreement - the Japanese physicists will back up the necessity, having seen the yield equations.

Your posts do not contain relevant facts. They contain overheated bullshit. Anmd yet they did surrender, just as expected, as soon as they found out about the Bomb. You seem unable to read English, but I will try again:

The US had several options available after the physicists told Truman the bomb had been designed, was ready to drop, and would definitely work (this was the Hiroshima design, months before Trinity testing of the Nagasaki design - the Hiroshima bomb was so simple that it was never tested, just built and dropped.) All but one of those options might well have shortened the war by weeks or months - the one chosen involved the longest delay, as the bomb was kept secret while all negotiations for surrender were trashed and the Nagasaki design was built and tested.

Every other option would have possibly shortened the war, substantially. If you are concerned about prolonging the war, notice that keeping the Bomb secret until there were two designs to try out on Japanese schoolchildren, while refusing to use it to negotiate surrender with Japan, prolonged the war by weeks or months.

That isn't true. You keep asserting falsehoods, about the history, my posting, everything. The US rushed Nagasaki, deliberately, giving the Japanese insufficient time to surrender. After Nagasaki, which was the second design they wanted to try out on a city full of people, they were happy to wait a normal amount of time - and Japan surrendered as fast as a country could have after Hiroshima. [/QUOTE]

LOL, falsehoods? That is funny coming from you Ice. The fact you have little subject matter knowledge doesn't stop you. The first nuclear bomb was detonated on August 6. The second was detonated on August 9. Three days is more than enough time to surrender. And even on August 9 Japan wasn't ready to surrender after receiving notice of the second detonation and Soviet Union's declaration of war. The Japanese military wanted to continue the fight. I suggest you read the material below.

A tortured American airman told Japan the US had 100 atomic bombs and Tokyo was next. Obviously he lied to stop the torture. That was the deciding factor. It wasn't until August 10 and after more than a day of discussion that the emperor finally decided to surrender. And it wasn't until August 15 that the emperor announced the surrender.

"The full cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, and spent most of the day debating surrender. As the Big Six had done, the cabinet split, with neither Tōgō's position nor Anami's attracting a majority.[87] Anami told the other cabinet ministers that, under torture, a captured American P-51 fighter pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed "in the next few days". The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan Project and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading.[88] In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945.[89] The third bomb probably would have been used against Tokyo.[90]
The cabinet meeting adjourned at 17:30 with no consensus. A second meeting lasting from 18:00 to 22:00 also ended with no consensus. Following this second meeting, Suzuki and Tōgō met the Emperor, and Suzuki proposed an impromptu Imperial conference, which started just before midnight on the night of August 9–10.[91] Suzuki presented Anami's four-condition proposal as the consensus position of the Supreme Council. The other members of the Supreme Council spoke, as did Kiichirō Hiranuma, the president of the Privy Council, who outlined Japan's inability to defend itself and also described the country's domestic problems"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surren...tion.2C_Allied_response.2C_and_Japanese_reply

I suggest you do your homework.

After telling them about the Bomb a few months prior (when the Hiroshima design was finalized), if that info were not enough, why not have them watch Trinity? Just pointing to some of the many options the US had that did not involve burning hundreds of children alive.

You are ignoring both common sense and the actual sequence of events, which provide evidence not only that the Japanese surrendered as soon as they found out about the Bomb but that the US thought it likely that they would - so likely that they kept the Bomb a secret for months after initial development, and rushed the Nagasaki drop. Everyone involved thought the knowledge of the Bomb probably would force surrender on Japan - so deciding when and how to impart that knowledge was the issue they faced.

1) and yet they surrendered, as expected, as soon as they found out about teh Bomb. 2) Why are you still yakking on and on about a land invasion of Japan, and soldiers fighting? That option was not on the table. You've been told that now several times - do you really think the US military would have invaded Japan with the Bomb handy?

As far as surrendering as soon as they found out about the Bomb, the US was so sure of that they rushed the Nagasaki bomb - hit a secondary target rather than wait a couple days for the weather to clear over the primary. The US didn't want to risk not getting to drop it.

You are writing nonsense again, I suggest you do your homework and get you facts straight.

 

[youreyes]

We should have handed over the secrets of the bomb? We didn't even think the soviets had them back then, there's no way we would give them to the Japanese. Photos can be doctored, and a test on our own soil could be faked with large amounts of TNT. They had to be nuked into submission and you shouldn't feel bad about it.

Ok than nuking USA two cities into submission would be acceptable to? After all how different is USA now from what Japan did before? USA is starting wars overseas constantly and is expanding its influence, so did Japan. So say eye for an eye deal, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for D.C. and Los Angeles.

 

[spidergoat]

Ok than nuking USA two cities into submission would be acceptable to? After all how different is USA now from what Japan did before? USA is starting wars overseas constantly and is expanding its influence, so did Japan. So say eye for an eye deal, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for D.C. and Los Angeles.

I'm not suggesting that Japan should think it's acceptable to nuke their cities. If course no one wants their cities nuked, but the golden rule doesn't apply in a time of war. Japan could try to nuke us, but they can't because:
1. we are friends,
2. they don't have any nukes,
3. we still have lots of them.

 

[joepistole]

Ok than nuking USA two cities into submission would be acceptable to? After all how different is USA now from what Japan did before? USA is starting wars overseas constantly and is expanding its influence, so did Japan. So say eye for an eye deal, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for D.C. and Los Angeles.

Ok, we know you are a Russian and you don't like the US coming down on your beloved Mother Russia and Mother Putin for invading and annexing neighboring states. But why do you live in the US and not Mother Russia? And we know you don't like democracy. But you still need to make sense.

If Japan or Nazi Germany had the nuclear bomb during WWII they certainly would have used it. Both Nazi Germany and Japan had programs to develop nuclear weapons. But Uncle Sam beat them to it. Einstein, who was a pacifist, is the father of the US nuclear bomb. It was Einstein who urged the President Roosevelt to develop the bomb. Had Einstein not push the nuclear bomb to President Roosevelt, it is likely the US would not have had the bomb to drop on Japan.

As for the US "constantly starting wars" I suppose you have some evidence to back up that claim? Actually, I know you don't, because it isn't true. The US doesn't invade, occupy and annex any state, much less neighboring states. You are just bent out of shape because the US and its allies are putting their collective feet down on Russian aggression. The world doesn't like Putin's use of nationalism to justify his invasion and annexation of neighboring states. Putin's use of nationalism and militarism to invade weaker states is too reminiscent of Hitler and we all know how that ended. What the world least needs is another Hitler. And if we learned anything from WWII, we should have learned appeasement doesn't work with fascist dictators like Mother Putin.

 

[billvon]

I'm not suggesting that Japan should think it's acceptable to nuke their cities. If course no one wants their cities nuked, but the golden rule doesn't apply in a time of war. Japan could try to nuke us, but they can't because:
1. we are friends,
2. they don't have any nukes,
3. we still have lots of them.

Problem is other countries _do_ have them - and eventually terrorists will get them.

Our rationale during WWII was "well anything is acceptable to help us win the war." The same logic, with the same level of morality, will one day be used against us by (for example) ISIS.

 

[spidergoat]

Problem is other countries _do_ have them - and eventually terrorists will get them.

Our rationale during WWII was "well anything is acceptable to help us win the war." The same logic, with the same level of morality, will one day be used against us by (for example) ISIS.

That's why we have to get them first. I never expect an enemy to adopt our moral codes. And I don't think the use of nukes is acceptable in all wars, just special cases, like a world war that had already consumed tens of millions of people.

 

[billvon]

That's why we have to get them first. I never expect an enemy to adopt our moral codes.

We can only pray they do not.

And I don't think the use of nukes is acceptable in all wars, just special cases, like a world war that had already consumed tens of millions of people.

And a terrorist might also assume that if several nukes were used against the US, the US would stop supporting the wars that are killing millions. And he'd be just as morally justified.

 

[Kittamaru]

Shock and Awe tactic, plain and simple. Not saying it was right or wrong...

 

[spidergoat]

We can only pray they do not.

And a terrorist might also assume that if several nukes were used against the US, the US would stop supporting the wars that are killing millions. And he'd be just as morally justified.

But it wouldn't work, we would only fight harder, because we feel our wars are morally justified. And we are mostly right about that. Most of those killed in Iraq were killed by other Iraqis anyway.

 

[billvon]

But it wouldn't work, we would only fight harder, because we feel our wars are morally justified. And we are mostly right about that. Most of those killed in Iraq were killed by other Iraqis anyway.

Doesn't really matter when you are up against an enemy that 1) will fight as hard as we will and 2) believes that the US is populated by immoral cowards.

 

[Russ_Watters]

And he'd be just as morally justified.

I'm not sure ISIS cares about moral justification.

 

[spidergoat]

Doesn't really matter when you are up against an enemy that 1) will fight as hard as we will and 2) believes that the US is populated by immoral cowards.

I don't care if they think we are cowards. We have drones and technology. They can only have limited success as long as we don't get drawn into a ground war where their guerrilla tactics can succeed.