Poll: Morality in Nuclear War

[thethain]

As for the actual topic. (theater) Nuclear strike will ALWAYS be wrong. They will always cause a catastrophic loss of civilian life, and environmental damage. During WWII carpet bombing was an accepted form of warfare, nuclear options basically were the end game of this type of campaign.

There may be a few given scenarios in which the use of a nuclear weapon is necessary or justifiable, but it will still be wrong.

 

[steampunk42]

right and wrong are mere illusions....when the nuke got invented the world ended....we just havent accepted it yet....

 

[BoosterGold]

right and wrong are mere illusions....when the nuke got invented the world ended....we just havent accepted it yet....

Bitter and pessimistic but saddly I can't seem to think up a valid argument T.T

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

No, the very existence of nukes has kept the major nations of the world from joining in an all out punch out with each other, to launch a nuke would be to start an epic punchout with the countries.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

Except it totally didn't cause the war to end sooner, the Russian invasion of Manchuria did that. Both events just kind of synched well together. As Mackheath said though, that was in a wartime situation against an enemy that was an active threat (how much is debatable but they were still at war), so it is significantly different to say dropping a nuke on North Korea because they are acting like jerks.

Nuclear weapons level the playing field, which is why most countries that have them don't want others to. Both sides know a nuclear war would lead to mutually assured destruction, hence why the cold war never went hot.

 

[Varrdy]

Only if every attempt has been made to not drop the bomb.

I concur.

It takes somewhat exceptional circumstances for a pre-emptive strike to be warranted. You would have to have irrefutable proof that the enemy were planning to strike and strike hard. Some negotiations may have broken down and/or a serious threat may have been issued for whatever reason. Whatever the circumstances, every other option would have to be ruled out. One country must have mobilised it's entire forces for war / invasion and have ignored every warning from the opposition that they have nukes and will use them.

Say Country A is getting ready for an all out invasion on Country B (To keep things simple I wont go into the reasons). Country A have not even tried to do things the diplomatic way - they are gearing up for an all out attack on Country B. All warnings from B and other countries have been ignored and A's forces are ready; fingers on triggers, tank engines running, planes in the air. The planes may very well be loaded with nukes and Country A has said they will be used.

At this moment in time, Country A looks like it means business and, on the face of it, Country B could be justified in getting the first punch in, as it were. What you would have to remember though is that not a single Country A soldier has set foot on Country B soil, neither have they fired a single shot or encroached on any airspace. Any strike made by Country B at this point would be pre-emptive and they would have to be 110% sure that Country A were not just posturing. OK it's fairly evident they aren't but you know what agressive twats are like - the second they get smacked down it's NEVER THEIR FAULT in their own minds.

The second a Country A soldier sets foot on Country B's soil or a Country A plane encroaches on Country B airspace then any strike from Country B becomes "retaliatory" rather than "pre-emptive". Country B will have said that they don't wish to fight but any encroachment on their territory will be considered an act of agression. The second the line is crossed then the gloves are off and it's all moot.

Anyway the point is to justify the pre-emptive strike and so I'm getitng ahead of myself. Presumably, Country B will have seen the A's war-machine heading in their direction and so have pulled their finger out and geared up to repel boarders. Whilst this is going on I would like to think that B's leader would have called A's leader and said: "Stand down or we'll do everything in our power to defend ourselves from any attempted attack. This will include the use of nuclear weaponry!"

Now everyone's position is clear. A are getting ready to invade B and B have said they will use force to stop them if they have to. If A ignores the warning then I feel that B could launch a pre-emptive strike and say "We warned you!" and be justified. It's not like A were not acting belligerently.

As I said though, the above circumstances are exceptional and would rely on other countries either ignoring the situation or wanting nothing to do with it for starters. Nuclear attacks don't just impact the country on the receiving end, they can affect other countries too. OK so Chernobyl was an accident but the fallout spread across a great deal of Europe and beyond.

I have to vote "No" on this one because the circumstances that would justify such a pre-emptive strike are just too unlikely to ever occur.

Well...at least I HOPE they don't ever occur!

Wardy

 

[Commissar Sae]

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.

Umm I must have had the wrong history books, because mine had basically said the japanese policy was to fight until every soldier had died (in fact some at Iwo Jima didn't surrender until years after the war). And that even after the first bomb Japan believed that it wasn't the US that had even caused it. And, even after the bombs, the terms of surrender still refused to place any blame on the emperor, who would have undoubtedly been involved in the decision to go to war.

That fight to the last man mentality was mostly held by the military officer class. The fact that none of there were incredibly limited numbers of American soldiers killed during the occupation of Japan pretty much sinks the idea that they were fanatical and wanted to fight to the last. The terms of conditional surrender offered by Japan through Swizerland months before the atomic bombs only demanded that the Emperor not be tried for warcrimes and be allowed to retain his position (something that happened anyway).

While there were many fanatical Japanese soldiers, the reason many troops refused to surrender was more due to the belief that they would be tortured and executed by American soldiers if they surrendered. To them it was better to die quickly either in battle or by suicide than risk drawn out torture ending in death anyway. There is actually background to this belief as many marines took revenge upon captured enemies or simply din't take prisoners at all.

The Pacific war devolved into a race war were neither side was giving quarter. Few prisoners were taken by either side and mutilation of bodies was frighteningly common on both sides.

 

[LT_Razgriz]

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.[/quote]

Japan wasnt going to surrender, its against everything the Japanese believed at that time. They could of surrendered at anytime. Hirshima was a important port city and Nagasaki was a major industrial city and a secondary target. Got to remember that there wasnt a lot of accuracy involved in bombing during ww2.

Besides the fire bombing of Tokyo claimed more lives and more damage than the A bomb in Horoshima.

 

[Brandon237]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

Except that one time it had never been used before, and no one had anything like it.

Except that one time has been burned into our collective conscience as one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

I'm going to go right ahead and call everyone who voted yes here a bunch of fucking idiots. You think there's ever a good time to use nuclear weapons? Please ban me from this shithole before I say something I'd regret.

Biggest mistakes ever made? What? While the effects of the radiation carry on today, dropping the bomb still saved many lives, and prevented massive loss of money better spent on food and infrastructure. Neither of the nukes actually caused as much damage as the fire-bombing of Tokyo anyway. Dropping the bomb also showed the world that innocents could die that quickly in war, in those numbers, so unstoppably. And this has left the world with a lasting fear of war. A fear that most likely prevented either Russia or The USA from wiping each other out.

And not all nukes are the massive city crushers that could spread fallout across an entire country. Many are smaller and designed to take out say, an aircraft-carrier. Doing something like that in a time where conflict seems inevitable sends a clear message: Don't try it, because you're going to lose.

War is war, I would prefer it if it never happened, but it will happen, and when it does, all morality is lost anyway, in war it doesn't matter who is right, but who is left.

 

[Mariena]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO-BLggwqRU

This is a 10 part series (on youtube) which is a very interesting take on how the Cold war and the East/West Berlin situation could have gone differently. Clever use of footage makes it feel very believable. I'll spoil the ending though, it ends with nukes.

 

[Koeryn]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

That.

But in that instance, you are killing innocent men and women, destroying houses, making the surrounding land radiated, thus leading to additional immense suffering of said innocents.

Used against soldiers though? I think that's fine. But then again, the radiation...

And that's why America came in later to help fix things up. If a country used a nuke, it should then be their responsiblity to clean up the mess it makes. That may help to make things seem more fair.

Then again, we could just not have anyone ever use nukes. Nukes will only lead this world off the tracks early.

True, but I think it'd be alright in instances like, oh I don't know, Racoon City!

But aside from that, we have bombs that are already much much bigger than Hiroshima and Nagasakis nukes. So those could and would be the better option. Although I'm not sure if they're radiological.

I have a very interesting pictures. It's actually pretty scary as well, but I don't know how to post pictures yet (lol).

Nuking Raccoon city wouldn't really be very effective. You'd have a relatively small foot print that destroys the zombies, beyond that you just have crispy or nuclear zombies that are inside damaged buildings to be time-released later. You're MUCH better off walling the place off, not to mention sealing and shutting off the water works and sewer systems that exit the city, and then sending strike teams in with baited kill-boxes to lure zombies into corridors of controlled fire, using choppers to move troops about.

Once the major surface concentrations are destroyed, start building-to-building sweeps, using armored personnel carriers such as Strykers and Bradleys to protect them between targets and allow rapid extraction. Once buildings are clear, you then clear the sewers (have troops wearing shark-resistant wetsuits, those will mostly protect against zombie bites).

Maybe even limit them to semi automatic fire. The Resident Evil zombies were head shot kill only, and automatic fire doesn't really help you (though slapping M134s on the brads and strykers in place of the 20mm on the brads and the .50s on the stryker would be a pretty awesome way of clearing a street...) on the individual level.


OT:

I think the one time it was a justifiable option was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because had the nukes not been dropped, Japan wouldn't have surrendered. It would have taken many, many, many more lives (including civilian ones, as civilians would have fought to protect their emperor too), until more or less all you had was a blood covered island. Dropping the nukes saved millions of lives for everyone the world around.

Nukes these days? The only time I see them being used is area denial when the Posleen come.

 

[Amphoteric]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

Japan was on the verge of surrendering before the nukes. So they were unnecessary.

 

[Chamale]

I want to clear up some misconceptions here. First, regarding radiation:

Used against soldiers though? I think that's fine. But then again, the radiation...

So those could and would be the better option. Although I'm not sure if they're radiological.

Thanks to the long term effects of the Radiation, i think that are pretty much done with morality once you consider using nukes.

Modern nuclear weapons are much more efficient than the ones used in World War II, and so release much less radiation. An airburst tritium-boosted fission bomb produces a tiny amount of fallout. It would be safe to walk directly under the hypocentre a day after the bomb went off.

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.

[citation needed]

While the Japanese did try to negotiate with the Soviets to achieve better peace terms, that was before the Soviets betrayed their treaty with Japan.

Even after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohiro didn't surrender. His science advisors told him that the first bomb was likely the only one that the Americans had. After the second bomb was dropped, the Americans claimed to have more bombs ready. At this point, the Emperor decided to surrender. However, Hirohito's military advisors correctly called the Americans' bluff, and tried to overthrow Hirohito so they wouldn't have to surrender.

While there were many fanatical Japanese soldiers, the reason many troops refused to surrender was more due to the belief that they would be tortured and executed by American soldiers if they surrendered. To them it was better to die quickly either in battle or by suicide than risk drawn out torture ending in death anyway. There is actually background to this belief as many marines took revenge upon captured enemies or simply din't take prisoners at all.

Your cause-and-effect is a bit backwards. It's true that American troops in the Pacific Theater committed many war crimes, but they didn't obey the Geneva Convention because Japan didn't. The reason they refused to accept surrender was that these surrenders tended to be false. By making false surrenders and then attacking with concealed weapons, Japanese soldiers committed the war crime of perfidy. This is a war crime because it encourages enemy troops to kill those who genuinely want to surrender.

Japanese propaganda told civilians that they would be tortured by Americans. Thousands of civilians committed suicide at the battle of Okinawa for fear of American troops. The horrific casualties at this battle, over 100,000 Japanese soldiers and 100,000 civilians, were even higher than the number killed by the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. This shows why an invasion of mainland Japan would be such a disaster, for Japan more than the U.S.

Except it totally didn't cause the war to end sooner, the Russian invasion of Manchuria did that. Both events just kind of synched well together.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Hirohito's surrender speech doesn't even mention the Soviet Union, except for referring to "United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union". As long as the enemies of Japan used conventional warfare, the Japanese would hold out and refuse to surrender. It took a bomb more powerful than anyone could imagine to cause Japan to give in.

No, unless its against Aliens.

Use them on aliens then its cool.

"We come in peace. Take me to your leader."
"I say we take off, then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

That would completely wreck our chances at diplomacy when we make first contact. A preemptive strike means that we attack because we feel threatened, but there hasn't been a real attack. Therein lies the problem; there hasn't been a real attack, but we might use nuclear weapons in response to a possibly imagined threat. Look at the invasion of Iraq to see what happens when we're mistaken about a nation's nuclear capability.

Or, look at the many Cold War instances of the world almost having a nuclear war. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly caused World War III. At the time, the United States and Soviet Union both had a policy of "massive retaliation" - if hit by 1 nuclear weapon, clobber whoever launched it with 1,000 nuclear weapons.

A falsely wired alarm at the Duluth Direction Center caused nuclear-armed F-106As to scramble. They were barely recalled in time.

A Soviet nuclear submarine was discovered and attacked by the American fleet. The officers voted on whether to use their nuclear arsenal. A unanimous vote would clear them to use nuclear bombs on the Americans. Vasily Arkhipov was the sole dissenting vote.

In a world of mutually assured destruction, it is vital that we never use nuclear weapons, unless someone else uses nukes first. Even then, we must use restraint. If North Korea managed to launch a nuclear bomb and hit Seoul, Tokyo, or Honolulu, nuking Pyongyang liberally might start a nuclear war with China. The risk of starting a nuclear war is so terrible that we must do whatever possible to ensure it won't happen.

 

[NorthernTrooper]

There is no morality once you fire one.

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.

[citation needed]

While the Japanese did try to negotiate with the Soviets to achieve better peace terms, that was before the Soviets betrayed their treaty with Japan.

Even after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohiro didn't surrender. His science advisors told him that the first bomb was likely the only one that the Americans had. After the second bomb was dropped, the Americans claimed to have more bombs ready. At this point, the Emperor decided to surrender. However, Hirohito's military advisors correctly called the Americans' bluff, and tried to overthrow Hirohito so they wouldn't have to surrender.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.hiroshima.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.misc/2006-05/msg04181.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/hiroshima
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm

 

[SenseOfTumour]

'Threads' is also on Youtube, a drama from about 30 years ago about a nuclear attack on northern England. It's pretty damned depressing stuff too, it was a BBC production I think, not gory, just very bleak.

If that was anything to go by, the immense fatalities in the minute or so after the bomb hits are the lucky ones, the months of disease, radiation, hunger, riots, and general breakdown in humanity as people fight for survival seems far worse than just being gone in a moment.

I can't help but think any launch nowadays would be the target of a counter attack from somewhere, and could be the end of everything as things escalate beyond reason.

A recurring aspect of the occasional nightmares I have are nuclear wars and seeing the mushroom clouds rising in the distance, I think I may be a little obsessed. I do feel in a way that it could happen at any moment tho.

 

[sirkai007]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

That.

But in that instance, you are killing innocent men and women, destroying houses, making the surrounding land radiated, thus leading to additional immense suffering of said innocents.

Used against soldiers though? I think that's fine. But then again, the radiation...

Modern nukes don't leave the radiation behind like they used to. They just vaporize things.

 

[Soviet Steve]

It all comes down to the situation.

If we can reduce the human cost by doing it, then yes, it is acceptable to do so.

On the subject of North Korea, one should remember that the regime there was put in place by the Soviet Union and is kept afloat by the Chinese. The people had no say in the establishment of the hereditary militarist dictatorship they have going on there. Exterminating North Korea for having had poor leadership imposed on them is like saying one should exterminate the Jews for having helped Hitler come to power, it's senseless.

In case anyone is curious, the Chinese don't keep the North Koreans afloat because of an interest in friendship, they merely view North Korea as a potential source of domestic instability since if NK was to kick the bucket and go into civil war mode then the Chinese would face a massive flood of refugees, which they seek to avoid.

 

[sirkai007]

"We come in peace. Take me to your leader."
"I say we take off, then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

That would completely wreck our chances at diplomacy when we make first contact. A preemptive strike means that we attack because we feel threatened, but there hasn't been a real attack. Therein lies the problem; there hasn't been a real attack, but we might use nuclear weapons in response to a possibly imagined threat. Look at the invasion of Iraq to see what happens when we're mistaken about a nation's nuclear capability.

You forget that Stephen Hawking warned us against contact with sentient extra terrestrial life. And everyone knows that crippled physicists know everything.