Nuclear Weapons

[NERVUN]

I think all human life is of equal value, but soldiers get payed to shoot and risk getting shot when they're at war. Civilians are not.

Let's not kid ourselves here, a major conventional war would cause absolutely devastatingly huge numbers of lost civilian lives, not to mention that many of the soldiers if not most - if ww3 were to happen - would be drafted, meaning they have no choice but to fight and are essentially civilians.

I guess it's something about the fact that anyone who gives the green light for the launch of a nuclear missile is directly attacking civilians. The vast majority of the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were obviously civilians. The bombings specifically targeted civilian-populated areas. A war in general doesn't usually target civilians, even though such collateral damage is inevitable.

Yes, I know that in WWII, both the Allies and Axis bombed cities, but a) that doesn't happen now and b) they were at least trying to hit military or at least industrial targets.

UK bombed Dresden, Hitler bombed London.
>.>

Both containing military targets, I 'spect.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained military targets.

Read a little up.

Read up a little what? About how Hiroshima contained the HQ for the 2nd Army, the Chugoku Regional Army, a Navy port as well as military factories and supply depots? About how Nagasaki housed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and was a major Navy port as well? Or about how Japanese cities are constructed (I.e. even today, Japanese planners don't believe in zoning)?

What am I supposed to read up on?

You weren't supposed to read up on anything (that be a foolish thing to say to you of all people). I told you to read a little bit up. Now I'm a little confused as to what you think I'm saying, though.

My point being that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and it's a little silly to say otherwise.

If entire cities can be military targets, nothing isn't save a field in the middle of nowhere. Those places you mentioned could have been bombed individually, resulting in far fewer civilian casualties.

Excepting WWII bombing ability (We didn't have guided bombs) and how Japanese cities are constucted, yes. But given that the general tactic in WWII was put plane over target, open bombbay, hope something hits and in Japan, factories are built in the middle of housing neighborhoods...

So the solution to that is just to blow even more shit up?

It was that, invade, or keep fighting and let millions more starve.

Don't get me wrong, as I have said before and will again (And again, and again, and again because this topic keeps coming up ), it was a bad choice out of a whole host of bad choices, but knowing all that we do know now, I still cannot see a way forward without causing more destruction or death. That doesn't make the bombings "right" or good in any way shape for form, they were evil and it is my ardent prayer that they will never be used again.

But one also has to look at what those cities were and how they were constructed to understand why bombing campagins of any kind would be difficult in Japan, even today in the time of lazer guided weapons and the like.

[Aryan Republics of Ame]

America lost because the UK didn't help them in vietnam.

Aye, those pesky Brits, having a go at America again after 1784 and 1812...
Bad Lizzie! BAD!

We beat America in 1812.

Anyway, America has had limited military success without british help. Maybe the mexican war you won. And of course the civil war, but that was America vs America, so only America could have won, so it doesn't count.

Apart from that, they suck. They've always needed our help.

Please note that, with your help or not, we helped your sinking island out of the hell known as WWII, killed our economy for you, and deliberately set Europe up as our successor.

Undeniably, our team only won WWII with our help. Even if you forget the fact that I was merely point out how much you suck without our help, without us you wouldn't ave had a launch pad for a start. That is simple fact. Things like the korean war, whilst it could be argued that you'd have won without our help, looking at vietnam we can see you suck and the only reason you won Korea was because of us.

Yeah, we haven't done jack for Britain.

I never said that.

Edit: Indeed, we have lost our share of wars, but we also won a shit load on our own.

America would not have entered the European conflict were it not for Britain genius. The UK dragged the US into 2 world wars. I don't think you should bitch about the little brush fire Wars the US starts that you assist with.

[Georgism]

America lost because the UK didn't help them in vietnam.

Aye, those pesky Brits, having a go at America again after 1784 and 1812...
Bad Lizzie! BAD!

We beat America in 1812.

Anyway, America has had limited military success without british help. Maybe the mexican war you won. And of course the civil war, but that was America vs America, so only America could have won, so it doesn't count.

Apart from that, they suck. They've always needed our help.

Please note that, with your help or not, we helped your sinking island out of the hell known as WWII, killed our economy for you, and deliberately set Europe up as our successor.

Undeniably, our team only won WWII with our help. Even if you forget the fact that I was merely point out how much you suck without our help, without us you wouldn't ave had a launch pad for a start. That is simple fact. Things like the korean war, whilst it could be argued that you'd have won without our help, looking at vietnam we can see you suck and the only reason you won Korea was because of us.

Yeah, we haven't done jack for Britain.

I never said that.

Edit: Indeed, we have lost our share of wars, but we also won a shit load on our own.

America would not have entered the European conflict were it not for Britain genius. The UK dragged the US into 2 world wars. I don't think you should bitch about the little brush fire Wars the US starts that you assist with.

Didn't you enter WW1 because of the sinking of the Lusitania (or whatever it was called)?

And WW2 because of Pearl Harbour?

Although you're lucky you entered WW2 really, else you probably would have lost the Cold War to a USSR which steamrolled over Western Europe as well as Eastern.

[North Suran]

America would not have entered the European conflict were it not for Britain genius. The UK dragged the US into 2 world wars. I don't think you should bitch about the little brush fire Wars the US starts that you assist with.

Actually, the USA entered the First World War when the British Empire revealed to it that Germany had despatched a message to the United Mexican States, arranging for them to invade the USA if it ever entered the war. In the Second World War, the USA only entered when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and only became involved in Europe when Germany declared war on it.

So basically, the USA entered both wars on its own initiative because there was a genuine threat to its interests, while the USA has demanded that the UK become involved in several wars with countries that posed no threat to British interests.

[Abdju]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

A premise proven false by history, as they have already been fired in anger by a supposedly rational and democratic government.

This was never entirely true, and is even less so now that smaller countries with otherwise relatively weak defences are getting them to scare off the big guys. If such a country were to be invaded, it is quite possible they would feel forced to launch their weapons either as a last ditch attempt to destroy invading forces or simply as a vengeance weapon.

How can a nuclear weapon ever be "non dangerous"?

[North Suran]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

A premise proven false by history, as they have already been fired in anger by a supposedly rational and democratic government.

Against a country which didn't have nuclear weapons.

[Dyakovo]

I like having them, I feel that the US and Russia may have actually duked it out instead of the relatively restrained primarily proxy based wars we saw during the cold war.

vietnam was restrained?

Compared to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe? Yes.

[Glorious Homeland]

Who cares about the Vietnamese, anyway... they're just proxy humans *nod*

Well they sur did kick the American in their ass. So far becoming the only nation in the entire world that defeated America's militry might.

Technically speaking, it was a stalemate, that led to a US loss because they withdrew. If they wanted to stay there they could have, popular decision was otherwise.

Can does not equal will. Stalin was hung up on "socialism in one country", and had no intentions of incorporating the world, or even all of Europe, into the Soviet Union.

He said that, but some analysists and former Soviets like Suvorov thought the entire Soviet Union's military efforts and deployments were preparing for a large scale war of agression. Suvorov argued that the reason Stalin's forces did so badly, besides him killing off the best officers, was because the military was redeploying from defensive lines to offensive; so the German invasion took them off guard and it lengthened the time they required to redeploy and reorganise, beyond the fact that some reports said Stalin outright refused to accept that they had been invaded for days after it happened.
Similarly, the Warsaw pact suggests otherwise; Stalin's orders let to the Katyn Massacre, and the establishment of a puppet military and regime in Poland, and the rest of eastern Bloc Europe post-war. These are not examples of an isolationist or defensive mentality or strategy.

They were just as badly mauled as the Germans were. The Soviets had already lost 10 million military dead with another 15 million civilians dead. They had 168 million in 1939. Everything west of Moscow was in rubble. They lost almost a 7th of their population.

According, again to Suvorov; in the 1960s the mid-ranked officers in the Red Army seemed to think that they were poorly equipped and trained. Back in the second world war however, they thought the army was at it's peak. They also feared what a challenge it would be for them to take on the West Germany Bundeshwehr, nevermind the entirity of NATO. The Soviets had the determination and industrial means to achieve a victory shortly after world war two, their production of equipment by the end of the war had largely become domestic, instead of largely importing from their allies, like at the start of the war, and their technology was of a good standard. The T-34 and equivalents by the end of WW2 were of extremely good quality compared to their western peers, unlike the t-62s compared to their western peers... the more time went by, the worse Soviet chances were at winning a military engagement. By the collapse of the USSR, it would have been an outright West Germany victory, minus nuclear weapons; nevermind if NATO got involved.

[Greed and Death]

No clue but since the genie is out of the bottle I should be allowed to own nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

[Right-Wing-Extremists]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

[Right-Wing-Extremists]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

Most of our Navy is run on nuclear power, which is why it is so effective. If we didnt have this, who knows who would have a more powerful Navy?

[Glorious Homeland]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

These Chinese army has poor equipment and training, I'd wager the Japanese Self-Defence force could probably stop an invasion against it, or at least severely damage it. Numbers have never been much of an advantage against quality since the invention of the machine gun.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

Most of our Navy is run on nuclear power, which is why it is so effective. If we didnt have this, who knows who would have a more powerful Navy?

Even in the 1930's the USA was a leading naval contender, and could replace nearly every ship in it's fleet within a year. We have the same ideas as Britain in naval terms. Nobody can just walk into the USA, so we will make sure they can't fly or sail in.

[Islamic Hazarastan]

If we (Pakistan) didn't get nukes, India would've massacred us. Our army, no matter how skilled, would be outnumbered.

[Right-Wing-Extremists]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

These Chinese army has poor equipment and training, I'd wager the Japanese Self-Defence force could probably stop an invasion against it, or at least severely damage it. Numbers have never been much of an advantage against quality since the invention of the machine gun.

According to Cia.gov, China has around 742,132,774 people AVAILABLE for military service. (Not fit) Japan has around 50 mil. Think about it.

[Glorious Homeland]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

These Chinese army has poor equipment and training, I'd wager the Japanese Self-Defence force could probably stop an invasion against it, or at least severely damage it. Numbers have never been much of an advantage against quality since the invention of the machine gun.

According to Cia.gov, China has around 742,132,774 people AVAILABLE for military service. (Not fit) Japan has around 50 mil. Think about it.

So? Higher densities of soldiers make artillery bombardment more deadly. I have thought about it plenty in many difference situations, but the truth of the matter is that in a conventional war, numbers rarely will lead to victory if they have tactical and technological superiority against them. Factor in other issues like the quality of training, morale, poor air support, never mind geographic problems... like Japan being an island nation, and having much mountainous, easily defensible land, etc. It becomes a slaughter.

Look at the kind of equipment the JSDF has... Apache's and MLRS. Those would easily obliterate an invading force. Chinese armour for instance is largely obsolete compared to it's Japanese equivalent too.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Don't get me started on this. Of course not. Nuclear weapons are the intangible balance between nations. They are the weapon that no country wants to fire, so they serve as a non dangerous way of saying "back off".

Pretty much what this guy said. They are a deterrent. If we didnt have them China would probably take us over.....eventually.

To be fair, there is no possible way for China to invade any allied(the the USA, at least) nations that it doesn't have land access to. The United States Navy is by far the most impenetrable defence system on earth.

These Chinese army has poor equipment and training, I'd wager the Japanese Self-Defence force could probably stop an invasion against it, or at least severely damage it. Numbers have never been much of an advantage against quality since the invention of the machine gun.

According to Cia.gov, China has around 742,132,774 people AVAILABLE for military service. (Not fit) Japan has around 50 mil. Think about it.

So? Higher densities of soldiers make artillery bombardment more deadly. I have thought about it plenty in many difference situations, but the truth of the matter is that in a conventional war, numbers rarely will lead to victory if they have tactical and technological superiority against them. Factor in other issues like the quality of training, morale, poor air support, never mind geographic problems... like Japan being an island nation, and having much mountainous, easily defensible land, etc. It becomes a slaughter.

Look at the kind of equipment the JSDF has... Apache's and MLRS. Those would easily obliterate an invading force. Chinese armour for instance is largely obsolete compared to it's Japanese equivalent too.

Not to mention the fact that they couldn't possibly mobilize even a fraction of that for an invasion, let alone gather a navy large enough to transport that fraction and defend itself from the Japanese Navy.

[Glorious Homeland]

This too.

[New Manvir]

There is only one true deterrent to war.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I think all human life is of equal value, but soldiers get payed to shoot and risk getting shot when they're at war. Civilians are not.

Let's not kid ourselves here, a major conventional war would cause absolutely devastatingly huge numbers of lost civilian lives, not to mention that many of the soldiers if not most - if ww3 were to happen - would be drafted, meaning they have no choice but to fight and are essentially civilians.

I guess it's something about the fact that anyone who gives the green light for the launch of a nuclear missile is directly attacking civilians. The vast majority of the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were obviously civilians. The bombings specifically targeted civilian-populated areas. A war in general doesn't usually target civilians, even though such collateral damage is inevitable.

Yes, I know that in WWII, both the Allies and Axis bombed cities, but a) that doesn't happen now and b) they were at least trying to hit military or at least industrial targets.

UK bombed Dresden, Hitler bombed London.
>.>

Both containing military targets, I 'spect.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained military targets.

Read a little up.

Read up a little what? About how Hiroshima contained the HQ for the 2nd Army, the Chugoku Regional Army, a Navy port as well as military factories and supply depots? About how Nagasaki housed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and was a major Navy port as well? Or about how Japanese cities are constructed (I.e. even today, Japanese planners don't believe in zoning)?

What am I supposed to read up on?

You weren't supposed to read up on anything (that be a foolish thing to say to you of all people). I told you to read a little bit up. Now I'm a little confused as to what you think I'm saying, though.

My point being that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and it's a little silly to say otherwise.

If entire cities can be military targets, nothing isn't save a field in the middle of nowhere. Those places you mentioned could have been bombed individually, resulting in far fewer civilian casualties.

Excepting WWII bombing ability (We didn't have guided bombs) and how Japanese cities are constucted, yes. But given that the general tactic in WWII was put plane over target, open bombbay, hope something hits and in Japan, factories are built in the middle of housing neighborhoods...

So the solution to that is just to blow even more shit up?

It was that, invade, or keep fighting and let millions more starve.

Don't get me wrong, as I have said before and will again (And again, and again, and again because this topic keeps coming up ), it was a bad choice out of a whole host of bad choices, but knowing all that we do know now, I still cannot see a way forward without causing more destruction or death. That doesn't make the bombings "right" or good in any way shape for form, they were evil and it is my ardent prayer that they will never be used again.

But one also has to look at what those cities were and how they were constructed to understand why bombing campagins of any kind would be difficult in Japan, even today in the time of lazer guided weapons and the like.

Pfft. We can just let the Sea Shepherds deal with you nowadays.

[The chrisman union]

Nuclear weapons were a necessary deterant during the cold war, but are just a drain on resources now.

[The blessed Chris]

Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Nobel

^ Try reading this article.

Or just read Vegetius, or even the motto of the Royal Navy, and then work it out for oneself? Si vis pacem, para bellum .

[Person012345]

If we (Pakistan) didn't get nukes, India would've massacred us. Our army, no matter how skilled, would be outnumbered.

Actually, you two are pretty much the only nations I'd say should maintain a nuclear weapon capability. It certainly stabalises the situation there imo.

[Glorious Homeland]

If we (Pakistan) didn't get nukes, India would've massacred us. Our army, no matter how skilled, would be outnumbered.

Actually, you two are pretty much the only nations I'd say should maintain a nuclear weapon capability. It certainly stabalises the situation there imo.

They wouldn't be in that mess if they had dealt with aftermath of the British withdrawl reasonably. I don't see the point of Pakistan from a functional standpoint... it's reason d'etre is to provide representation for Muslims from India; but hundreds of millions of Muslims still live in India all those years after mass migrations and ethnic cleansing that happened soon after India gained independence... so surely that makes Pakistan's purpose... redundant? Seems like they could have made a hugely powerful world player if they didn't fragment like that. Imagine what they could have achieved if they didn't piss about with wars and a nuclear arms race against one another? Just a waste.