75 years after Hiroshima, should nuke use be a war crime?

[Baltenstein]

That's not what MAD is. MAD is deterring the enemy by ensuring that if they attack you with nuclear weapons (as in a Defcon 1 event) then you will destroy them. If Canada sends some APCs to conquer Detroit then MAD will not be applicable as it's not a nuclear threat.

MAD is not a strategy people created deliberately. It's just the end result of multiple sides all simultaneously saying: "If you attack me I'll nuke you." The conversation in the 50's was something like:

evil empire of america: Don't you dare do anything to oppose us soviets or we'll nuke you.
soviet union: We'll we'll just nuke you!
Both sides: O_o
...
...
50 years of ...

Actually, the Soviet Union had a severe missile gap right up until the end of the Cold War.

The US could have annihilated the USSR atomically during the Cuban Crisis, but not the other way around (Granted, millions of US and Western European civilians would have died regardless)

[Novus America]

Actually no, MAD in its 70s conceptions could apply to a conventional attack too.
For example if the Soviets used a purely conventional attack on Europe we still threatened to go all out with nuclear weapons. MAD in its extreme form is “you try anything we both die”.

Also again what if the launch a limited nuclear strike on a military target? Would you actually try to destroy them completely knowing that would result in your death in return?
Probably not, hence it is a bluff.

Hence not really credible. Rather it makes more sense to have the ability to respond to a limited attack with a limited attack.

Perhaps in writing, but in practice nukes weren't ready to fire for just any situation. For example, during the Cuban missile crisis the UK nuclear bombing wing were ready to fly at a moment's notice. During a BBC documentary one of the pilots said that if he was given the order of '8 East' then they will fly out to drop their bomb load and- if given the opportunity- he'd phone his wife to head for remote parts of Scotland to be relatively safe from the Soviet bomb blasts if they haven't dropped already; implying that it wasn't just for conventional wars.

MAD did not exist at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as we had and overwhelming nuclear advantage. We could have destroyed most of the Soviet nukes that could hit us first, use our defenses to stop most the rest, and effectively destroy them while suffering much less damage in return.

Sure MAD could apply to a nuclear or conventional attack, that was the whole point “you try anything we both die” but obviously that is an inflexible and not very credible idea, compared to “you try anything and we will respond accordingly, we not might die, but I might respond with lesser means than an all out attack too”.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

I just recently two days ago watch the movie Threads, and I really think after watching that movie that nuclear weapons was a bad idea to begin with to simply put. Those things are capable of rendering humanity extinct and even if humanity doesn't go extinct it will permanently put us in a state of Middle Ages forever due to all the resources we have used up at this point.

If a nuclear war were to happen today or tomorrow, humanity is fucked and never going to get back to the technology we have right now.

[Atheris]

I just recently two days ago watch the movie Threads, and I really think after watching that movie that nuclear weapons was a bad idea to begin with to simply put. Those things are capable of rendering humanity extinct and even if humanity doesn't go extinct it will permanently put us in a state of Middle Ages forever due to all the resources we have used up at this point.

If a nuclear war were to happen today or tomorrow, humanity is fucked and never going to get back to the technology we have right now.

I believe the opposite. Nuclear weapons are the only things that prevent World War 3 - or at least, the only things that prevented World War 3 in the Cold War.

Imagine it's 1980. There's a standoff between the USSR and the USA in Berlin. A shot is fired, and nobody knows which side did it.

In a world with nuclear weapons, the USSR and USA want to come to an agreement to make sure the world doesn't blow up.

In a world without nuclear weapons, the USSR or the USA say the other side did it. Two superpowers with opposing ideology and goals leads to what? War.

It's a pattern in history - if two superpowers exist, war is inevitable. The UK and the German Empire, Napoleon and the Coalitions, Britain and France. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed that concept. Now, no two superpowers want to go to war for the risk of destroying the world and their own country.

[Novus America]

I just recently two days ago watch the movie Threads, and I really think after watching that movie that nuclear weapons was a bad idea to begin with to simply put. Those things are capable of rendering humanity extinct and even if humanity doesn't go extinct it will permanently put us in a state of Middle Ages forever due to all the resources we have used up at this point.

If a nuclear war were to happen today or tomorrow, humanity is fucked and never going to get back to the technology we have right now.

Actually even a full scale US vs Russia nuclear war would not cause humanity to go extinct or go back to the Middle Ages. Southern Africa for example would be largely unscathed.
Nuclear weapons are very destructive but not that kind of world ending destructive.

And you cannot undo it so the whole “assuming that it was realistically possible to prevent the creation of nuclear weapons should we have never created them” is purely hypothetical and thus basically meaningless. The cat is out of the bag.

The question is only how do we manage the cat, he is not going back in.

[The Reformed American Republic]

That's not what MAD is. MAD is deterring the enemy by ensuring that if they attack you with nuclear weapons (as in a Defcon 1 event) then you will destroy them. If Canada sends some APCs to conquer Detroit then MAD will not be applicable as it's not a nuclear threat.

MAD is not a strategy people created deliberately. It's just the end result of multiple sides all simultaneously saying: "If you attack me I'll nuke you." The conversation in the 50's was something like:

evil empire of america: Don't you dare do anything to oppose us soviets or we'll nuke you.
soviet union: We'll we'll just nuke you!
Both sides: O_o
...
...
50 years of ...

Were not an "evil empire."

[Alcala-Cordel]

MAD is not a strategy people created deliberately. It's just the end result of multiple sides all simultaneously saying: "If you attack me I'll nuke you." The conversation in the 50's was something like:

evil empire of america: Don't you dare do anything to oppose us soviets or we'll nuke you.
soviet union: We'll we'll just nuke you!
Both sides: O_o
...
...
50 years of ...

Were not an "evil empire."

America is absolutely an evil empire. We may not be orthodox imperialists, but we have much of the world under our thumb and we'll do unspeakable things for money.

[Novus America]

Were not an "evil empire."

America is absolutely an evil empire. We may not be orthodox imperialists, but we have much of the world under our thumb and we'll do unspeakable things for money.

Eh, more like a “sometimes evil sometimes not not really and empire despite being somewhat of a hegemony”. Things are much more complicated than that. Also many of things we do are not just about money either.

[Atheris]

Were not an "evil empire."

America is absolutely an evil empire. We may not be orthodox imperialists, but we have much of the world under our thumb and we'll do unspeakable things for money.

America's more of a "lawful good imperialist federation".

[Bear Stearns]

America is absolutely an evil empire. We may not be orthodox imperialists, but we have much of the world under our thumb and we'll do unspeakable things for money.

America's more of a "lawful good imperialist federation".

>lawful

[Atheris]

America's more of a "lawful good imperialist federation".

>lawful

...Neutral good.

[Plzen]

...Neutral good.

> good

In the long run this system of petty nation-states competing with each other needs to be abolished. As Einstein once said, as long as sovereign nations possess great power, war is inevitable. Internationalism is the only way to truly secure democracy.

But in the meantime, for the proponents of democracy on Earth, dismantling the State Department and the CIA would be a good start.

[Atheris]

...Neutral good.

> good

In the long run this system of petty nation-states competing with each other needs to be abolished. As Einstein once said, as long as sovereign nations possess great power, war is inevitable. Internationalism is the only way to truly secure democracy.

But in the meantime, for the proponents of democracy on Earth, dismantling the State Department and the CIA would be a good start.

Internationalism is impossible. Nationalism has existed in its modern form since the 18th century, and will not go away. A united world government would most likely run the way of the SFR Yugoslavia.

[Novus America]

...Neutral good.

> good

In the long run this system of petty nation-states competing with each other needs to be abolished. As Einstein once said, as long as sovereign nations possess great power, war is inevitable. Internationalism is the only way to truly secure democracy.

But in the meantime, for the proponents of democracy on Earth, dismantling the State Department and the CIA would be a good start.

I think we are going off topic, obviously the US needs to reform our state department and intelligence agencies, but we obviously still need a diplomatic and intelligence apparatus.
And the idea of one global democracy is just naive. Especially when the give of them biggest country by population hates democracy. Not going to work.

But this is specifically not about nuclear weapons, not how to solve all other issues.

[Ethel mermania]

America is absolutely an evil empire. We may not be orthodox imperialists, but we have much of the world under our thumb and we'll do unspeakable things for money.

America's more of a "lawful good imperialist federation".

I wish, I would go with chaotic on the D&D scale

[Ethel mermania]

...Neutral good.

> good

In the long run this system of petty nation-states competing with each other needs to be abolished. As Einstein once said, as long as sovereign nations possess great power, war is inevitable. Internationalism is the only way to truly secure democracy.

But in the meantime, for the proponents of democracy on Earth, dismantling the State Department and the CIA would be a good start.

Internationalism?? God forbid

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

MAD is not a strategy people created deliberately. It's just the end result of multiple sides all simultaneously saying: "If you attack me I'll nuke you." The conversation in the 50's was something like:

evil empire of america: Don't you dare do anything to oppose us soviets or we'll nuke you.
soviet union: We'll we'll just nuke you!
Both sides: O_o
...
...
50 years of ...

Actually, the Soviet Union had a severe missile gap right up until the end of the Cold War.

The US could have annihilated the USSR atomically during the Cuban Crisis, but not the other way around (Granted, millions of US and Western European civilians would have died regardless)

Had the Cold War gone hot then the entire European continent definitely would’ve been a completely uninhabitable radioactive wasteland.

[Sundiata]

Nuclear weapons should not be permitted and may we someday see the day when all weapons cease to be used.

So long as extreme nationalism or tribalism exists, conflict will likely never be solved.

Defeatism is unacceptable here. Peace on earth is possible but we've got to keep on trying.

[US-SSR]

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Some thoughts and comments from the OP:

The US justification for using nuclear weapons on Japan was equal parts racism, vengeance and the desire to impress the rest of the world, particularly the Soviet Union, with its unassailable military might heading into the postwar period. Truman's statement on Hiroshima claimed, "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold."

What does racism have to do with the bombings?

The argument is that using the bomb on Germany was never seriously considered. German surrender in May 1945 eventually made that somewhat moot; here's a piece that discusses some of the possibilities.

Is it a war crime to mass murder civilians?

Yes, but by that time the institution of international law will already collapsed, so not anymore...?

Also the alternative to nuking Japan is the Operation Downfall invasion plan, a lunatic disaster waiting to happen that will see at the minimum of 1 million US soldier dead, multiple nukes on the beaches of Kyushu (radiation wasn't perfectly understood by then), the total destruction of Japan and its infrastructure, and the death of approximately 75% of the Japanese population through warfare and starvation.

Except dropping the bombs and invading were not the only two options. As noted above many senior US military leaders believed the bombs were not needed to defeat Japan. Something like a blockade could have been tried if Truman had had enough imagination to try it.

I seriously doubt the Chinese,North Koreans,Indians,Pakistanis or the Israelis are going to give up their nuke willingly.

Somewhat off topic as we're discussing whether nuke use should be a war crime, not whether nations should possess nukes. But the history of nuclear arms limitation shows nations can be persuaded to reduce their stockpiles; why not work toward eliminating them entirely?

Is it a war crime to mass murder civilians?

Yes. I don't see a difference between dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, let's say, the "conventional" bombing of Coventry, Dresden, Rotterdam or Tokyo. Bombing indiscriminately a population centre is a war crime.

On the other hand, dropping a nuke on, let's say, the Yamato and her squadron during operation Ten-Go would have been a perfectly legitimate combat action.

The point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was precisely to demonstrate the awesome, hellish destruction of nuclear weapons which at that time only the US possessed in order to impress the rest of the world, specifically the Soviet Union, with US military might. Using Fat Man to blow away a few ships wouldn't have been the same.

Which raises at least one other point about deterrence. Nucelar weapons were not designed to be a deterrent, they were designed to give the US absolute dominance in the postwar era. The whole rationalization of mutual assured destruction arose only after the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear capacity -- with the invaluable aid of its intelligence service. (Off-topic: the same intelligence service that today is subverting elections in the US, the UK and Russia's "near abroad.")

So let's take a moment to remember the hundreds of thousands who died 75 years ago in the blasts, many leaving only shadows on the walls and streets; who succumbed afterwards from burns, wounds and radiation; who lived to develop cancers and to watch their children die from birth defects. And let us resolve that this will never be allowed to happen again.

So long as extreme nationalism or tribalism exists, conflict will likely never be solved.

Defeatism is unacceptable here. Peace on earth is possible but we've got to keep on trying.

"It is possible to live in peace." -- Gandhi

[Novus America]

But how would simply waiting for the blockade to kill millions via starvation actually have been better?

You do know part of the blockade was literally named Operation Starvation yes?

[Rusozak]

But how would simply waiting for the blockade to kill millions via starvation actually have been better?

You do know part of the blockade was literally name Operation Starvation yes?

What about dropping the bomb someplace where civilians wouldn't be hurt but a lot of people could see it happen? Like a warning shot with a nuke, since at the time nuclear weapons were a secret and such destructive force would have probably been dismissed as impossible without a demonstration.

[Aeritai]

But how would simply waiting for the blockade to kill millions via starvation actually have been better?

You do know part of the blockade was literally name Operation Starvation yes?

What about dropping the bomb someplace where civilians wouldn't be hurt but a lot of people could see it happen? Like a warning shot with a nuke, since at the time nuclear weapons were a secret and such destructive force would have probably been dismissed as impossible without a demonstration.

Weren't leaflets dropped to warn civilians?

Correct me if I am wrong.

[Novus America]

But how would simply waiting for the blockade to kill millions via starvation actually have been better?

You do know part of the blockade was literally name Operation Starvation yes?

What about dropping the bomb someplace where civilians wouldn't be hurt but a lot of people could see it happen? Like a warning shot with a nuke, since at the time nuclear weapons were a secret and such destructive force would have probably been dismissed as impossible without a demonstration.

Well the only real way to sometimes show the power of a weapon is to use it for real.
Although your idea is not the worst one, and maybe should have been tried I doubt it would have worked. After all they only surrendered after the second one fell.

Indicating dropping one one over say Tokyo bay (which was actually proposed) would not have been enough.

[Outer Acharet]

What about dropping the bomb someplace where civilians wouldn't be hurt but a lot of people could see it happen? Like a warning shot with a nuke, since at the time nuclear weapons were a secret and such destructive force would have probably been dismissed as impossible without a demonstration.

America had a very limited supply of nuclear weapons at the time. If they were needed to be used on actual targets wasting one on some grassland somewhere for a publicity stunt would be an unbearable expense. Dropping it on a city demonstrated its terrible potential very personally and probably justified the cost.

[Ethel mermania]

But how would simply waiting for the blockade to kill millions via starvation actually have been better?

You do know part of the blockade was literally name Operation Starvation yes?

What about dropping the bomb someplace where civilians wouldn't be hurt but a lot of people could see it happen? Like a warning shot with a nuke, since at the time nuclear weapons were a secret and such destructive force would have probably been dismissed as impossible without a demonstration.

It was dismissed, they only had the two bombs, it would have taken months to get more. What I have read there was a fear that if it didn't work they thought it would stiffen resistance among the Japanese