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

[Picairn]

How would we do that? Also, what do you mean by "not far" - and does it include an alien invasion?

We already achieved something similar with Starlite, a nuclear-resistant material in the 1980s. Too bad the secret was lost when the inventor, Maurice Ward, died in 2011. Still, some other materials are being developed, and Starlite is also in the process of being replicated. The future is not far.

As for your fantasy about alien invasion, what is that supposed to mean?

[Region of Dwipantara]

How would we do that? Also, what do you mean by "not far" - and does it include an alien invasion?

We already achieved something similar with Starlite, a nuclear-resistant material in the 1980s. Too bad the secret was lost when the inventor, Maurice Ward, died in 2011. Still, some other materials are being developed, and Starlite is also in the process of being replicated. The future is not far.

As for your fantasy about alien invasion, what is that supposed to mean?

I fail to see how a magical new material is going to cancel the effects of continent-spanning thermonuclear blasts and heat, thousands of tons of century-spanning radioactive fallout, nuclear winter, collapse of agriculture, and the mass deinhabitation of urban centers. Are we going to cover everything with Starlite? Are we going to cover the entire outer surface of Trump Tower and the other 1,101,623 buildings in New York City, and its streets, and its parks, and its grass and trees with Starlite?

Edit: also don't forget about the total collapse of global economy, trade, institutions, and stability that will result from such tragedy. People was locked in their home for a few months due to a virus and the economy tanked by a third. In the event of nuclear war, that won't even matter anymore.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yes. Vapourising large numbers of civilians is a bit naughty.

[Picairn]

I fail to see how a magical new material is going to cancel the effects of continent-spanning thermonuclear blasts and heat, thousands of tons of century-spanning radioactive fallout, nuclear winter, and the mass deinhabitation of urban centers. Are we going to cover everything with Starlite? Are we going to cover the entire outer surface of Trump Tower and the other 1,101,623 buildings in New York City, and its streets, and its parks, and its grass and trees with Starlite?

It is certainly a tremendous improvement over letting millions be vaporized instantly and thousands more killed in extreme heat. Not to mention it would be a game-changer as an effective deterrent of fire in every aspect of normal life. It would take a fool to fail to recognize the benefits Starlite brings.

[Purpelia]

How would we do that? Also, what do you mean by "not far" - and does it include an alien invasion?

We already achieved something similar with Starlite, a nuclear-resistant material in the 1980s. Too bad the secret was lost when the inventor, Maurice Ward, died in 2011. Still, some other materials are being developed, and Starlite is also in the process of being replicated. The future is not far.

As for your fantasy about alien invasion, what is that supposed to mean?

Sound like a hoax if you ask me. A stub article about a magical super material that only ever existed once as made up by a non qualified guy that does not have a background in material science and that nobody could recreate since? Yea, no.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I fail to see how a magical new material is going to cancel the effects of continent-spanning thermonuclear blasts and heat, thousands of tons of century-spanning radioactive fallout, nuclear winter, and the mass deinhabitation of urban centers. Are we going to cover everything with Starlite? Are we going to cover the entire outer surface of Trump Tower and the other 1,101,623 buildings in New York City, and its streets, and its parks, and its grass and trees with Starlite?

It is certainly a tremendous improvement over letting millions be vaporized instantly and thousands more killed in extreme heat. Not to mention it would be a game-changer as an effective deterrent of fire in every aspect of normal life. It would take a fool to fail to recognize the benefits Starlite brings.

So you are unironically suggesting that we waste tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to embark on a gigantic infrastructure project with literally no additional side benefit whatsoever completely cover every surface of thr 5.6 million commercial complexes totalling 87 billion square feet, 139 million houses, and still many more buildings in the US with a molten substance that hasn't shown any commercial promise for the last 40 years? When there are far larger priorities to spend US tax and debt money for, like addressing the imminent economic crisis or the incoming climate crisis? Oh, and that the entire US population will basically live in a Disney-esque dystopia where everything is covered with glass-like starlite? Okay, good luck.

Oh, also I forget, a magical shielding don't do anything useful if the ground below the building is blown up. Or if the building is pushed from its foundation by the blast. You know, maybe the money will be better spent developing laser weapons to shoot the missiles. All for an unrealistic and dubious piece of wundertechnology. Really, what am I even doing with my spare time lol

[Free Federal States]

I believe that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan was justified, but modern nuclear weapons should be banned. The projected casualties for an invasion of Japan were astronomical, and the Japanese were prepared to sacrifice every one of their citizens for an honorable end. Thus, the nukes ironically saved lives, and far more Japanese than American lives.

The situation where dropping a nuclear bomb saves lives will never exist again. The destructive power of a modern nuclear weapon is far, far greater than those dropped on Japan. Additionally, the world’s population has greatly increased since 1945. Say a modern nuclear bomb existed in 1945. If dropped in any given spot, 2 million people might die. With population growth, that same area today might hold 10 million people.

No conventional invasion, even with massive armies and high tech weapons, is likely to be comparable to the destructive power of a single modern nuclear weapon.

Nuclear deterrence is real. I admit that banning nuclear weapons makes a third global war significantly more likely. Nuclear weapons is the reason why the Cold War did not go nuclear, because both sides put humanity’s survival ahead of their own ego. I do not see that in today’s world. Everywhere I turn, people of all walks of life make impulsive and shortsighted decisions, and I do not trust people in the modern day to put humanity’s survival ahead of their pride, as the United States and USSR did for nearly 50 years.

War is horrendous. War is savage. There is no question about that. A large conventional war would be devastating to humanity. Multiple large conventional wars would be devastating to humanity. But not nearly as devastating as what would happen if there was one accident involving a nuclear weapon.

Picture this:
In 2025, China attacks US allies South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Without the threat of American nuclear response, they are free to bring these territories under their domination by any means necessary. 40 million people are killed in this bloody war. Later, in 2050, The United States and Russia go to war over Russian encroachment in Eastern Europe. 30 million people die in that war.

Or

In 2025, Chinese early-warning systems malfunction, showing hundreds of American nukes heading for China’s shores. China believes the failing system, and launches their nukes at the United States. The United States launches nukes back. Nobody in either country survives. Oops. 2 billion people just died all because of an accident.

I’ll take the conventional warfare because, to quote:
“The combination of nuclear weapons and human infallibility will lead to the destruction of nations” - Robert McNamara

Also, no matter what outcome is in a conventional conflict, history proves that no empire lasts forever. Seriously. I’d prefer Russia taking over the United States to nuclear war, for so long as America exists, it would be possible to restore democracy/independence in due time. If we’re all smoldering husks of radioactive dust, we can do nothing to protect our liberty or that of others.

[Region of Dwipantara]

II admit that banning nuclear weapons makes a third global war significantly more likely. Nuclear weapons is the reason why the Cold War did not go nuclear, because both sides put humanity’s survival ahead of their own ego. I do not see that in today’s world.

Stanislav Petrov and Vasily Arkhipov is typing....

[Prozitia]

Yes. Anyone who says no is a fascist, period.

[Free Federal States]

It is certainly a tremendous improvement over letting millions be vaporized instantly and thousands more killed in extreme heat. Not to mention it would be a game-changer as an effective deterrent of fire in every aspect of normal life. It would take a fool to fail to recognize the benefits Starlite brings.

So you are unironically suggesting that we waste tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to embark on a gigantic infrastructure project with literally no additional side benefit whatsoever completely cover every surface of thr 5.6 million commercial complexes totalling 87 billion square feet, 139 million houses, and still many more buildings in the US with a molten substance that hasn't shown any commercial promise for the last 40 years? When there are far larger priorities to spend US tax and debt money for, like addressing the imminent economic crisis or the incoming climate crisis? Oh, and that the entire US population will basically live in a Disney-esque dystopia where everything is covered with glass-like starlite? Okay, good luck.

Oh, also I forget, a magical shielding don't do anything useful if the ground below the building is blown up. Or if the building is pushed from its foundation by the blast. You know, maybe the money will be better spent developing laser weapons to shoot the missiles. All for an unrealistic and dubious piece of wundertechnology. Really, what am I even doing with my spare time lol

You’re right that covering everything in magic material won’t work, but funding top-tier defensive weaponry I believe should be a priority. Say Russia launches nukes at America. Do I care how many Russians die if we nuke them back? No. Do I care if the US is able to shoot down the nuclear missile that’s about to kill my sorry ass? Hell yes!

There’s no point in mounting an attack if you are incapable of defense. Focus on protecting American lives first, in the least expensive but still most effective way possible, then we can talk about modernizing our own nuclear arsenal. If we are to keep nuclear weapons, that is. If we ban them, no money spent on updating Cold War nukes, no money spent on high-quality air defense systems, and definitely no money spent on covering the whole country in magical nuke-proof material.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

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.

II admit that banning nuclear weapons makes a third global war significantly more likely. Nuclear weapons is the reason why the Cold War did not go nuclear, because both sides put humanity’s survival ahead of their own ego. I do not see that in today’s world.

Stanislav Petrov and Vasily Arkhipov is typing....

Imagine how Earth would be like if they decided to follow protocol. I’ve seen a whole alternate history based on the events of September 26th, 1983 in that bunker, and the world doesn’t look to pretty.

China's more likely to start a war than America, imho

Number of countries the PRC raped or tried to rape since its inception in 1948.
1. Conquered Tibet
2. Does the Korean war count? I say no since they were helping defend an ally.
3. One war with Vietnam. That one counts, sort of. They didn't really do that much damage but still it counts.
4. A couple small border conflict with India and the Soviets

Now compare that to the list of countries america has attacked in the last decade alone.

Of the top of my head, they’ve performed operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. That’s pretty much it, to be frank. China is much more aggressive in its territorial claims and economic manipulation now, so I say it depends on the region. America for the Middle East, China for the rest of Asia (and Africa, likely inserting pro-PRC governments).

---

As for my actual opinion on the matter, I’d say that the use of such weapons should be, especially when you consider that a lot of the targeted places would be cities, with millions unnecessarily getting blown up.

There are is an exception I would make to this, which is the possible use of nukes in terraforming efforts (but I doubt such use would be successful, given radioactive contamination is a thing).

[Region of Dwipantara]

So you are unironically suggesting that we waste tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to embark on a gigantic infrastructure project with literally no additional side benefit whatsoever completely cover every surface of thr 5.6 million commercial complexes totalling 87 billion square feet, 139 million houses, and still many more buildings in the US with a molten substance that hasn't shown any commercial promise for the last 40 years? When there are far larger priorities to spend US tax and debt money for, like addressing the imminent economic crisis or the incoming climate crisis? Oh, and that the entire US population will basically live in a Disney-esque dystopia where everything is covered with glass-like starlite? Okay, good luck.

Oh, also I forget, a magical shielding don't do anything useful if the ground below the building is blown up. Or if the building is pushed from its foundation by the blast. You know, maybe the money will be better spent developing laser weapons to shoot the missiles. All for an unrealistic and dubious piece of wundertechnology. Really, what am I even doing with my spare time lol

You’re right that covering everything in magic material won’t work, but funding top-tier defensive weaponry I believe should be a priority. Say Russia launches nukes at America. Do I care how many Russians die if we nuke them back? No. Do I care if the US is able to shoot down the nuclear missile that’s about to kill my sorry ass? Hell yes!

There’s no point in mounting an attack if you are incapable of defense. Focus on protecting American lives first, in the least expensive but still most effective way possible, then we can talk about modernizing our own nuclear arsenal. If we are to keep nuclear weapons, that is. If we ban them, no money spent on updating Cold War nukes, no money spent on high-quality air defense systems, and definitely no money spent on covering the whole country in magical nuke-proof material.

Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed by Reagan, do just that. Ironically if such projects really took place, there would be no one happier than the military-industrial complex. Meanwhile SDI was controversial in some sectors, and was criticized for threatening to destabilize the MAD-approach and to possibly re-ignite "an offensive arms race", not to mention the potential mass weaponization of space - a bad thing. By the early 1990s, with the Cold War ending and nuclear arsenals being rapidly reduced, political support for SDI collapsed.

[Nuroblav]

Yes for events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just generally using or testing nukes I'd say no, but if they become used to intentionally harm normal civilians, it would likely count.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

So you are unironically suggesting that we waste tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to embark on a gigantic infrastructure project with literally no additional side benefit whatsoever completely cover every surface of thr 5.6 million commercial complexes totalling 87 billion square feet, 139 million houses, and still many more buildings in the US with a molten substance that hasn't shown any commercial promise for the last 40 years? When there are far larger priorities to spend US tax and debt money for, like addressing the imminent economic crisis or the incoming climate crisis? Oh, and that the entire US population will basically live in a Disney-esque dystopia where everything is covered with glass-like starlite? Okay, good luck.

Oh, also I forget, a magical shielding don't do anything useful if the ground below the building is blown up. Or if the building is pushed from its foundation by the blast. You know, maybe the money will be better spent developing laser weapons to shoot the missiles. All for an unrealistic and dubious piece of wundertechnology. Really, what am I even doing with my spare time lol

You’re right that covering everything in magic material won’t work, but funding top-tier defensive weaponry I believe should be a priority. Say Russia launches nukes at America. Do I care how many Russians die if we nuke them back? No. Do I care if the US is able to shoot down the nuclear missile that’s about to kill my sorry ass? Hell yes!

There’s no point in mounting an attack if you are incapable of defense. Focus on protecting American lives first, in the least expensive but still most effective way possible, then we can talk about modernizing our own nuclear arsenal. If we are to keep nuclear weapons, that is. If we ban them, no money spent on updating Cold War nukes, no money spent on high-quality air defense systems, and definitely no money spent on covering the whole country in magical nuke-proof material.

I think the underlined part is a bit excessive, given many would care about other human lives. While the lives of those who reside in your country are priority over that of others, especially in something like a war, the people who the hypothetical American nukes are going to target are still people. If it’s a singular nuke, I think it would be somewhat okay to send another one to Russia to tell them to either stop or fuck off, but if it’s a lot, I think American defence resources should primarily be focused in stopping the nukes in any way possible over hitting back at Russia. If Russia launched all their nukes but America and company didn’t and instead focused on stopping the nukes, that would give America the advantage in any ensuing war, because Russia no longer has nukes.

[Free Federal States]

I know that SDI (nicknames Star Wars, right?) was intended to do just what I suggested we need. Problem is, people are very shortsighted and I don’t see anyone in Washington who’s willing to fund this. A modern Cold War won’t look like the 20th century Cold War, for that Cold War had only two Great Powers keeping each other in check. The last time there were multiple Great Powers, World War I happened. Today, both Russia and China are Great Powers in addition to the United States. If Europe unites, that will add one more Great Power. India and Japan are potential future Great Powers, India because of its population and resources, and Japan because it’s already an economic giant. Each of these major countries has its own interests at heart and it only takes one over ambitious move and one nuclear response to destroy the world. Hence, we need to get to work on a new SDI now to protect ourselves or ban all nuclear weapons.

[Free Federal States]

You’re right that covering everything in magic material won’t work, but funding top-tier defensive weaponry I believe should be a priority. Say Russia launches nukes at America. Do I care how many Russians die if we nuke them back? No. Do I care if the US is able to shoot down the nuclear missile that’s about to kill my sorry ass? Hell yes!

There’s no point in mounting an attack if you are incapable of defense. Focus on protecting American lives first, in the least expensive but still most effective way possible, then we can talk about modernizing our own nuclear arsenal. If we are to keep nuclear weapons, that is. If we ban them, no money spent on updating Cold War nukes, no money spent on high-quality air defense systems, and definitely no money spent on covering the whole country in magical nuke-proof material.

I think the underlined part is a bit excessive, given many would care about other human lives. While the lives of those who reside in your country are priority over that of others, especially in something like a war, the people who the hypothetical American nukes are going to target are still people. If it’s a singular nuke, I think it would be somewhat okay to send another one to Russia to tell them to either stop or fuck off, but if it’s a lot, I think American defence resources should primarily be focused in stopping the nukes in any way possible over hitting back at Russia. If Russia launched all their nukes but America and company didn’t and instead focused on stopping the nukes, that would give America the advantage in any ensuing war, because Russia no longer has nukes.

Idk why it’s underlined. I didn’t do the brackets or anything lol. That statement comes out a little too negative anyway (sry, didn’t proofread). What I’m saying is, if Russia attacks us with nukes, I am ok with 0 Russians dying in response and I am ok with all of them dying in response, but making sure 0 Americans die must take priority over making sure all the Russians die.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I think the underlined part is a bit excessive, given many would care about other human lives. While the lives of those who reside in your country are priority over that of others, especially in something like a war, the people who the hypothetical American nukes are going to target are still people. If it’s a singular nuke, I think it would be somewhat okay to send another one to Russia to tell them to either stop or fuck off, but if it’s a lot, I think American defence resources should primarily be focused in stopping the nukes in any way possible over hitting back at Russia. If Russia launched all their nukes but America and company didn’t and instead focused on stopping the nukes, that would give America the advantage in any ensuing war, because Russia no longer has nukes.

Idk why it’s underlined. I didn’t do the brackets or anything lol. That statement comes out a little too negative anyway (sry, didn’t proofread). What I’m saying is, if Russia attacks us with nukes, I am ok with 0 Russians dying in response and I am ok with all of them dying in response, but making sure 0 Americans die must take priority over making sure all the Russians die.

I underlined it myself. I get your point though.

[Ethel mermania]

The op is wrong in its analysis.

Which isn't necessary to answer the question. To which the answer is "No"

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Flattening Rotterdam was a heinous act of barbarism worthy of charging Göring with war crimes but doing it on a scale unimaginably worse is a'ok. Smh.

[Picairn]

So you are unironically suggesting that we waste tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to embark on a gigantic infrastructure project with literally no additional side benefit whatsoever completely cover every surface of thr 5.6 million commercial complexes totalling 87 billion square feet, 139 million houses, and still many more buildings in the US with a molten substance that hasn't shown any commercial promise for the last 40 years? When there are far larger priorities to spend US tax and debt money for, like addressing the imminent economic crisis or the incoming climate crisis? Oh, and that the entire US population will basically live in a Disney-esque dystopia where everything is covered with glass-like starlite? Okay, good luck.

Oh, also I forget, a magical shielding don't do anything useful if the ground below the building is blown up. Or if the building is pushed from its foundation by the blast. You know, maybe the money will be better spent developing laser weapons to shoot the missiles. All for an unrealistic and dubious piece of wundertechnology. Really, what am I even doing with my spare time lol

Invest that spare time into research instead of scoring points on the Internet. Apparently some dude on Youtube found a formula as close to the OG material as possible, using dirt-cheap corn starch and glue. And shooting the missiles down is another good option to consider, that is if the Strategic Defense Initiative successfully make a breakthrough, right now it's wasting money.

[Plzen]

No. Deterrence is important. Nuclear weapons are the only things keeping up even the vague semblance of a balance of power. If nuclear weapons are banned, then there would be nothing stopping the United States from doing basically whatever they want to basically anyone they want with their complete superiority of conventional arms.

Most American diplomacy over the past six decades (and increasingly, Chinese diplomacy as well nowadays), when stripped of all its legalese and flowery language, basically boils down to the stance of a junior school bully. "Do what I say, or else" and "so what'cha going to do about it" are their well-worn tools of the trade. Imagine how much worse it will get if the only method by which a small and impoverished country can cause significant damage to American interests is taken off the board. In much the same way that (western legend suggests) the Colt pistol made all men equal, nuclear weapons ensure that any country that has them, no matter how small, can defend their own sovereignty and future.

People focus a lot on the negative effects of using nuclear weapons, and yes those consequences are horrible, but they are also besides the point. In the logic of deterrence, the reason for making threats is to avoid being pushed into situations where you must then make good on those threats. If nuclear weapons are actually used, then they have failed in their purpose.

Not only should nuclear weapons not be prohibited by international law, we should be dismantling the international norms and institutions that prevent more secondary powers from getting some of their own.

[Risottia]

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.

[Novus America]

II admit that banning nuclear weapons makes a third global war significantly more likely. Nuclear weapons is the reason why the Cold War did not go nuclear, because both sides put humanity’s survival ahead of their own ego. I do not see that in today’s world.

Stanislav Petrov and Vasily Arkhipov is typing....

Both those incidents were vastly exaggerated by anti nuclear partisans for purely political gain. Neither was the danger such partisans make them out to be.

[Novus America]

Atomic weapons are the only thing that stopped and still stop america from starting WW3.

Okay this is still silly. Where have nuclear weapons stopped the US from starting WWIII?
Ironically you grossly exaggerated American conventional military capability as well as our will to start a fight with a significant conventional power.

Although nuclear weapons have deterrence value (although not to the degree many people claim) other weapons have deterrence value as well.

You may disagree with certain US actions, which is fine, but the US military actions are not random attempts to start WWIII.

[Novus America]

So you are unironically suggesting that we waste tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to embark on a gigantic infrastructure project with literally no additional side benefit whatsoever completely cover every surface of thr 5.6 million commercial complexes totalling 87 billion square feet, 139 million houses, and still many more buildings in the US with a molten substance that hasn't shown any commercial promise for the last 40 years? When there are far larger priorities to spend US tax and debt money for, like addressing the imminent economic crisis or the incoming climate crisis? Oh, and that the entire US population will basically live in a Disney-esque dystopia where everything is covered with glass-like starlite? Okay, good luck.

Oh, also I forget, a magical shielding don't do anything useful if the ground below the building is blown up. Or if the building is pushed from its foundation by the blast. You know, maybe the money will be better spent developing laser weapons to shoot the missiles. All for an unrealistic and dubious piece of wundertechnology. Really, what am I even doing with my spare time lol

Invest that spare time into research instead of scoring points on the Internet. Apparently some dude on Youtube found a formula as close to the OG material as possible, using dirt-cheap corn starch and glue. And shooting the missiles down is another good option to consider, that is if the Strategic Defense Initiative successfully make a breakthrough, right now it's wasting money.

SDI is no longer around. So it is not wasting money. We do have another missile defense system, but it does a lot of good, because it has deterrent value, even if it is not 100% effective. It still would make an enemy think twice about trying a limited nuclear attack.