General [M]ayhem

General [M]ayhem (http://www.genmay.com/index.php)
-   The Pit (http://www.genmay.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   What justifies the use of a nuclear weapon? (http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=528610)

neonfish07 05-01-2005 09:59 AM

What justifies the use of a nuclear weapon?
 
What do you believe justifies the use of a nuclear weapon? Was the United States justified in World War II?

Personally, I believe it should only be used in last-stand defense of your own country. World War II was an exceptional situation as Japan was originally the aggressor.

I really don't have an opinion, so I was hoping you could help me formulate one...

Discuss.

wen 05-01-2005 10:13 AM

What justifies the use of any weapon?

[H]eadup 05-01-2005 10:29 AM

of course it was justified in WW2 there is and never will be any remorse for what happened at pearl harbor,

also what would you rather have had a 100,000 dead japenese from a nuke or 100,000 more dead americans from invading the mainland?

jubjub 05-01-2005 10:34 AM

[QUOTE=neonfish07]What justifies the use of a nuclear weapon? ...

[/QUOTE]

the use of a nuclear weapon.

jubjub 05-01-2005 10:35 AM

[QUOTE=neonfish07] Was the United States justified in World War II?

[/QUOTE]

yes.

TheMorlock 05-01-2005 11:35 AM

[QUOTE=jubjub]the use of a nuclear or large scale biological/chemical weapon.[/QUOTE]

fixt

For anything less we have MOAB's

BelgianSandwich 05-01-2005 11:53 AM

harboring Islam

ViriiK 05-01-2005 12:06 PM

Yes it was justified in WWII

Do you think it's better to do a landscale invasion of Japan with the both civilian and military population willing to commit Sepiku for the Emperor against a force of 1,000,000 US Soldiers, over 500 Navy Ships, 10,000 Bomber Fleet, etc required to do the job estimating 75% casualty way more than the estimated 20% in Normandy?

We lost 6800 Marines at Iwo Jima which that island was critical for the invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall). And guess what happened when we dropped the bombs on Japan. Their deaths at Iwo Jima had been for nothing.

dagamore 05-01-2005 12:14 PM

since most reports at the time, showed that it would have taken more then 3 years and more then 1million US losses, plus at least 2 million Japanes losses to take the islands by force. Since japan was setup and ready to fight foot by foot for all the islands. so i do think that the loss of less then 5% of that number is a good reason.

Nano 05-01-2005 12:14 PM

Nothing.

Ever.

Including japan.

FM 2347 05-01-2005 12:18 PM

I thought it wsa justified for Japan. Maybe it will be justified for leveling a terrorist camp somewhere. That would be awesome. :D

auction1 05-01-2005 12:45 PM

Well, what sort of nuke?
A tactical nuke on a cruise missile? Whenever the battlefield situation calls for good destructive capability in a relatively remote area (perhaps taking out a first-response airfield).
A multiple warhead thermonuclear ballistic missile? Use of a nuclear weapon.

Edit:
I'm cool using the big nukes on anyone who attacks the US directly, collateral embassy damage excluded.

welk 05-01-2005 01:09 PM

Nothing would ever justify the use of nukes again. They don't just kill millions of people, they also pollute the entire planet (look what chernobyl did, and that was just an accident).

I'm not sure if they were justified against japan. Some people say there would have been huge losses from an invasion (which i don't doubt) but others suggest japan was on the brink of collapse anyway. However even if they had stepped up the pressure by conventional bombing, this may have killed just as many people. However america would have a better moral platform from which to suggest other countires shouldn't have nuclear weapons if it wasn't the only country to have ever used them.

If any country ever uses nukes again then every country in the world should shun them forever.

Slacker 05-01-2005 01:31 PM

[QUOTE=welk]Nothing would ever justify the use of nukes again. They don't just kill millions of people, they also pollute the entire planet (look what chernobyl did, and that was just an accident).

I'm not sure if they were justified against japan. Some people say there would have been huge losses from an invasion (which i don't doubt) but others suggest japan was on the brink of collapse anyway. However even if they had stepped up the pressure by conventional bombing, this may have killed just as many people. However america would have a better moral platform from which to suggest other countires shouldn't have nuclear weapons if it wasn't the only country to have ever used them.

If any country ever uses nukes again then every country in the world should shun them forever.[/QUOTE]

Chernobyl was a poorly designed nuclear reactor, not a nuclear weapon. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have hundreds of thousands of people living there today. Modern nuclear weapons have very little long term radiation, especially if it's an airburst. Besides there has already been hundred of nuclear tests worldwide and you'll still get more background radiation from minute amounts of radon leaking out of the ground then the aftereffects of nuclear weapons.

Far more people died in conventional firebombings then with nuclear weapons. There was single nights of firebombing Tokyo that produced more casualties.

Aside from a massive attack with dozens or more nuclear weapons I don't think there's any justification for nuking an entire city. Now if it's a remote military base or hardenend bunker of some sort that can only be taken out by a tactical nuclear weapon that's different. I don't see much need for that since we have conventional weapons now that reach into the sub kiloton range. But if the base was the site of production or imminent launch for weapons of mass destruction I could see the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. Unless we have WW3 I don't think there will ever be a justifiable use for strategic nuclear weapons.

:ninja: 05-01-2005 01:34 PM

[QUOTE='[H]eadupMyAss']

also what would you rather have had a 100,000 dead japenese from a nuke or 100,000 more dead americans from invading the mainland?[/QUOTE]

The war was almost over before we dropped the bombs. Many historians argue that the war would have ended very soon even if we had not nuked them.


Why are Japanese lives less valuable than American lives?


Fucking jarhead dumbshit.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2002-2015 CrowdGather, Inc.