Was the Nuke really necessary? - Page 9




 
--
 
June 18th, 2004  
Eric
 
Well...like everything man-made we ended up with a good and an evil side.
When we mastered the Nuclear enrgy, we made the bomb and we made the power plants providing clean electricity for millions of people.When nuclear energy is used and controlled in a modern democratic country, things are kind of / sort of fine (France is an example: independant nuke power and power plants running since the mid 60 ies providing 80% of its electricity + exporting some + recycling its nuke waste and Germany's nuke waste + haven't bombed or threaten to bomb anybody, not even the US despite the current French bashing! )
When nuclear enrgy ends up in the hand of dictature like sytems (N Korea, former USSR...) we end up with the cold war and the Chernobyls or other impending Nuke submarines ecological disasters.
The chemical industry brough us medicine, pesticides...derivative from these products were created for harming people: chemical weapons, toxics, gases...
The creation of the car led to the tanks....the horse was raised for farming and transportation and brought to war...
You name it...every single thing man creates has a double edge....because we are both angels and devils!!!
Look at genetic engineering...soon will see genetic weapons that will disrupt the genetic structure of the living target it is spread on....wanna bet!
So complaining about an historical fact of human life is kind of pointless.
We just have to live with it...and cross our fingers!
Remember: the only other living organism that destroys its host is...a virus! Are we virus like?
June 18th, 2004  
Nick E
 
If we fit the definition. We destroy others for money, land, and yes... Protection. but is it really protection, or just an excuse for poor Commanders?
June 18th, 2004  
Tessa
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick E
If we fit the definition. We destroy others for money, land, and yes... Protection. but is it really protection, or just an excuse for poor Commanders?
Good question, wich I also would want an answer too.
--
June 21st, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Hmmmmm.... interesting one, but..... maybe one poor commander, but what's with the whole HQ?
June 21st, 2004  
Nick E
 
Well you know what I mean.
June 21st, 2004  
Sgt. Nick Fury
 
I consider this to be a silly question......and an example of skewed ethics by a modern world unaccustomed to the horrors of war. First, it saved possibly 100,000's of lives in the hard fighting that was undoubtedly ahead, had we had to take Japan with infantry, many many more on both sides would have perished. We were already killing a lot of civilians in our fire bomb attacks. Which I would argue are far more inhumane. So I would say it saved many other Japanese civilians too. I think it was the only morally right thing for a commander in chief to do given the circumstances. It would have been immoral, and irresponsible not to use it at that time.

Secondly, I would have no reservation using nuclear weapons again should it save large numbers of American lives. If you would hesitate to use nuclear weapons for the defense of your country, then why have them? Don't pick up any weapon or own one you are not prepared to use. Otherwise it becomes truly dangerous, as your enemies are more likely to test your resolve, and force you into a situation where you might have to use it. If they know for certain you will use it as soon as they meet certain conditions, they will not meet those conditions.

Third, I would argue the addition of Nuclear weapons has contributed largely to the unparallelled period of peace in modern civilizations. The problem now it appears, is that while it used to require you to have had to advance to certain modern civilization standards to have such a device. Now it's becoming accessible to even backward theological driven societies, which might not think of it as a deterrent, but rather as "gods will", and worth everlasting riches in the next life. ( I am not just refering to Islam, it coudl just as well be concieved this way in Hinduism, or Christianity).........I don't think we've really answered yet what we're going to do about that. But should any nation use them, no matter how insane the leadership. The modern world should have absolutely no reservation in using our full arsenal on that nation. If they doubt your resolve....they are more likely to bring such a horrible event about.

Also I do beleive that people are somewhat responsible for their nations leadership. No leader can survive without the "mandate of heaven" forever. Even the most ruthless of dictators must have a certain level of consent by the governed. So the idea that you can blame all actions of a nation on a single man, and claim the rest of the nation is innocent is ubsurd.
June 22nd, 2004  
Nick E
 
I wasnt really referring to japan, just the nuke in particular. I agree the Nuke is more humane. I'm sorry for offending you but just i'm against mass killings.
June 22nd, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
I'm just against mass killings of civilians..........
As for enemies military I can't say......
June 23rd, 2004  
Lazza
 
Nuking Japan was totally unecessary. Japan was negotiating surrender at the time and knew Russia planned to turn East, having disposed of Hitler.

The nuke had a threefold effect, it kept the Reds in the West away from the US, it also sped Japans surrender, and it showed the Reds the power of the A bomb. Thus began the cold war, the US had manipulated the situation in such a way that its 'ally' now faced off against its own army which had renegged on crucial Yalta plans and whose president even said "the more Russians that die the better". Yes, the US started the cold war, and led the world to the brink of annihilation. On the whole a catastrophic mismanagement of international affairs.

Unforunately getting there first enabled the US to completely bodge the surrender terms, accepting US$20 on behalf of war crime victims, and enabling Japan to retreat into a state of denial that is still preventing outstanding grievances being settled.

Lets face the truth, both Germany and Japan would have fallen to the then rampant Red Army. I believe that in the end the US need not have participated in person at all (excepting the kind lend lease donations).

Unfortunately a 'young' America continues to blunder forth in its meddlesome ways, acting without thinking.

Lazza.
June 23rd, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
I hope everyone here is aware that USSR would not have survived Hitler. FDR kept sending tons of weapons to the Red Army either before and after US entered war, and he sent tons of food to the inhabitants of Stalingrade during siege. Without the US help Hitler would have defeated the Red Army, or at least weakened it more.