- This topic has 6 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
:- I don't know, given that the US is the only country that has ever actually used them in wartime automatically gives us a little credibility. I also don't think the threat of their use is made very lightly and there is a very specific set of circumstances under which nukes would be used. Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms Then again, nuclear war is not conventional by any stretch of the imagination.
:- I don't know, given that the US is the only country that has ever actually used them in wartime automatically gives us a little credibility. I also don't think the threat of their use is made very lightly and there is a very specific set of circumstances under which nukes would be used. Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms Then again, nuclear war is not conventional by any stretch of the imagination.
I am definitely differentiating between nuclear and conventional war.Our use of the bombs has been followed by decades of avoiding using them again. I think we felt both justified and horrified. Just how much damage it would do to a populated city was theory until one was used. It would have been a very vague threat. Now it is very clear to us and to those we might have to threaten in the future. They have to take it more seriously and so do we. When we dropped those bombs, no one else had any, which is another reason that decision doesn't buy us ultimate credibility in threatening to do it again now.
it is me in battle
Nice glasses.
They are pretty slick arent they? ;D Seriously though, I know two people who lost eyes because they were not wearing their ballistic eye protection when an IED went off. They may have looked goofy but I went through 3 pairs in a years from the lenses getting hit by crap, one time shrapnel. I would have rather have cracked glasses than only one eye.
I am definitely differentiating between nuclear and conventional war.Our use of the bombs has been followed by decades of avoiding using them again. I think we felt both justified and horrified. Just how much damage it would do to a populated city was theory until one was used. It would have been a very vague threat. Now it is very clear to us and to those we might have to threaten in the future. They have to take it more seriously and so do we. When we dropped those bombs, no one else had any, which is another reason that decision doesn't buy us ultimate credibility in threatening to do it again now.
Ah, but our demonstrated willingness to use them is a deterrent in itself regardless of whether that was decades ago. I don't see how us using it when no one else did causes us to lose credibility, you are going to have to explain that one to me.Lastly, I don?t think Nuclear War is really what was on the table in the original article, rather it was the supposed end of the use of conventional forces against each other in future wars in favor of smaller insurgent type armies fighting conventional troops. I disagree completely with the above premise and think that the current period is not even an anomaly we are just in the trough of the cycle if you will. The current era is in many ways synonymous with the middle years of the 19th century in that small wars seem to be what is on offer. In the 19th century it was the concert of Europe that enforced the broader peace in the past 60+ years it has been the Pax Americana and MAD doctrine that has kept the peace. Conventional, pitched wars will return, the question is just when. I say 20-30 years when I look in my crystal ball.
Ah, but our demonstrated willingness to use them is a deterrent in itself regardless of whether that was decades ago. I don't see how us using it when no one else did causes us to lose credibility, you are going to have to explain that one to me.
Actually, what I said was no else had any, which I think made it an easier decision. We were demonstrating to the world what we alone had in our arsenal. We did not truly know how devastating it would be; we had a pretty good idea, but there was no precedent to clearly illustrate the horror we were unleashing. Now others have it as well and we know what it does to a populated area. This complicates the decision tremendously. It isn't just reprisal we have to worry about if we use it, it is also setting the precedent of when it is okay to use a nuclear weapon. We can't expect the international community to keep the bar really high if we make an exception.
Horror like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The correct of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still being debated. Just because no one else had it did not make it more horrifying anymore than the Prussian posession of the needle gun at Koniggratz made their infantry more horrifying. Nukes were seen as a tool and a tool that would help save American lives. Truman did not spare more than a moments reflection for how horrible the bomb would be to the Japanese, he was more concerned with preventing the million American casualties predicted if Operation Olympic went off. It is only since WWII that the morality of weapons use has been debated and that is a specific outcome of American use of the bomb. That does not mean we would hesitate to use it. As I said in an earlier post, there are a specific set of circumstances under which the US has deemed the use of Nuclear weapons to be justified. It is limited but I believe it is effective.
Horror like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The correct of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still being debated. Just because no one else had it did not make it more horrifying anymore than the Prussian posession of the needle gun at Koniggratz made their infantry more horrifying. Nukes were seen as a tool and a tool that would help save American lives. Truman did not spare more than a moments reflection for how horrible the bomb would be to the Japanese, he was more concerned with preventing the million American casualties predicted if Operation Olympic went off. It is only since WWII that the morality of weapons use has been debated and that is a specific outcome of American use of the bomb. That does not mean we would hesitate to use it. As I said in an earlier post, there are a specific set of circumstances under which the US has deemed the use of Nuclear weapons to be justified. It is limited but I believe it is effective.
I am not making my points very clearly - yes, points because there are two that you got mixed together. I don't think that it was more horrifying because no one else had it. I don't think the (widely perceived but not by everyone) horror of it was a factor in Truman's decision, but I think the fact that no else had it was a factor. But if you are going to list the other factors in Truman's decision, I think the Russian declaration of war against Japan and "invasion" was as big a factor as our planned conventional operations. We risk a tangential debate there, I know. You may be surprised to hear that despite my admittedly peacenik-chanchurmantra leanings, I think he made a reasonable choice from the limited options he had.
I think he made a reasonable choice from the limited options he had.
That is the point I am trying to make as well. I am also trying to say that debate about nuclear weapons and their use is at best, tangential to a discussion about the article claiming that humanity has reached the end of the era of conventional war between states.
I am also trying to say that debate about nuclear weapons and their use is at best, tangential to a discussion about the article claiming that humanity has reached the end of the era of conventional war between states.
Given roughly equal tacticians as leaders, the larger or better equipped army will generally win a conventional war. The race is not always won by the swift nor the battle by the strong, but it is best to bet that way. In conventional warfare, a small force generally cannot stand in the way of a much larger one. But if destruction of the small force carries the consequence of a nuclear reprisal, then it can. IMO, this changes the way a conventional war can be waged dramatically.However, I must concede you are correct with respect to the specific article in question. I am off on a tangent.
I will give you the point that nukes totally upset the big battalions equation. But that was kind of the point in developing them anyway wasn't it? I mean, how cool is it that we can vaporize an entire city. They are the ultimate terror weapon, they even beat fire-bombing, or starvation. The Sword of Damocles over civilization indeed.
The Sword of Damocles over civilization indeed.
Or the modern equivalent...[img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxQGK8WK0QZbm8nyaS7aqfANu07JCi9gLRlWBqz37yYZk6RRc&t=1&usg=__vGOc-eaFO1Im-0VxVtp-MikfaQg=[/img]
I think he [Truman] made a reasonable choice from the limited options he had.
That is the point I am trying to make as well.
I thought of yet another analogy with respect to this. Pres. Truman must have felt like I do when I am in the voting booth. None of the choices are/were optimum. But at least people won't be debating the wisdom of my choices 65 years later...
I think he [Truman] made a reasonable choice from the limited options he had.
That is the point I am trying to make as well.
I thought of yet another analogy with respect to this. Pres. Truman must have felt like I do when I am in the voting booth. None of the choices are/were optimum. But at least people won't be debating the wisdom of my choices 65 years later...
You have never discussed what ifs like what would have happened if Goldwater beat LBJ in '64? Those are the kind of decisions that the individual makes that will be discussed later. Some others, why did Obama get elected?, What if Wilson had been defeated in 1916, would we still have Joined WWI and if so how would the peace have been different absent the 16 Points?, and finally what if Dewey really had won in '48? Those are all questions that hinge on what the individual voter did. Never doubt that your vote is historic, it certainly is. It is even more powerful because so many who can do not and thus give their authority to those of us that do vote.
