Hiroshima-- are we projecting backwards?

Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa so bad, (and it wasn't
worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting the emotional and moral
baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be associated with on it?

Charles Gray wrote:
Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa
so bad, (and it wasn't
worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting
the emotional and moral
baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be
associated with on it?
I think it's the latter. And as a historian, we're also projecting today's
ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly 60 years ago. At the time, nearly
everyone in the US and Britain felt it was necessary.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:58:52 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


Charles Gray wrote:
Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa
so bad, (and it wasn't
worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting
the emotional and moral
baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be
associated with on it?
I think it's the latter. And as a historian, we're also projecting today's
ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly 60 years ago. At the time, nearly
everyone in the US and Britain felt it was necessary.

Most assuredly after 58 years of hand-wringing and pontificating over
nuclear weapons it is the latter. The impact of the single bomb power
of Fat Man and Little Boy was significant, but the damage relative to
the conventional strategic bombing campaigns of WW II was not that
great. The fire storms of Dresden or Tokyo were certainly equally
terrifying.

But, if we are to be objective in analysis, the possession,
deployment, development, refinement, etc. of nuclear weapons by the US
(and Great Britain, France, Soviet Union) stabilized the world for the
second half of the Twentieth Century and eventually led to the
collapse of the SU and conversion of most communist nations into mixed
economies.

The dismantling of significant quantities of nuclear weapons (and
weaponry) since the early '80s has been remarkable.

The question for debate is whether there will ever be a situation in
which a rational national leadership of a nuclear power would use
nuclear weapons. If the answer is no, then how much longer will there
be an economic acceptance?

I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

The fact of the matter is, that most of the hand-wringing comes from
folks who have no understanding of the size, capability or effects of
nuclear weapons. They simply whine and whimper about Armageddon and
hang their arguments on emotionalism.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:30:53 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Just my thought-- is it that Hirosshima wsa so bad, (and it wasn't
worse than Tokyo), or are we simply projecting the emotional and moral
baggage that nuclear weapons have come to be associated with on it?

Actually I believe that it is the usual, anti-US drivel that jealous and/or
stupid people think makes them look "feeling".

Al Minyard

Matt Wiser wrote:

snip
I think it's the latter. And as a historian, we're also projecting
today's
ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly 60 years ago. At the time,
nearly everyone in the US and Britain felt it was necessary.

I like many people on the NG are here because our fathers didn't have to
face the beaches of Honshu or Kyshu. The attitude I have is that of somone
I met who was dying of cancer possibly due to the Nagasaki bomb - he
thought it gave him 40 years he wouldn't have had as a POW (read less then
slave).

regards

jc

John Campbell wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:

snip
I think it's the latter. And as a historian,
we're also projecting
today's
ethics and moral dilemmas on events nearly
60 years ago. At the time,
nearly everyone in the US and Britain felt
it was necessary.

I like many people on the NG are here because
our fathers didn't have to
face the beaches of Honshu or Kyshu. The attitude
I have is that of somone
I met who was dying of cancer possibly due to
the Nagasaki bomb - he
thought it gave him 40 years he wouldn't have
had as a POW (read less then
slave).

regards

jc
If the original aim point for the Nagasaki bomb had been hit, the POW camp
would have been out of the blast zone, IIRC the actual release point was
about 2-3 miles from the intended AP. Still enough to wreck the industrial
targets in the city. Wasn't the POW camp shielded from the actual blast area
by some hills? The hills prevented a firestorm as in Hiroshima and in the
Tokyo fire raid.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

I remember that post.

Surely you will admit that nuclear weaponry comes with a lot of
political "baggage". Just having them is a real turn off to many
people, not necessarily our enemies.

If the US were to use nukes, say in the tactical role in eastern
Afghanistan in busting bunkers and caves, do you think the political
fallout (no pun intended) would be worth being concerned about? Would
it be no worse than our current political situation where it *seems*
multilaterists define the politcal, anti-American, climate?

Do you have nay concerns over "slippery slope" arguments of nuke use?
The US used them for tactical purposes (perhaps with good result), so
now it's "not so bad" using nukes. Eventually, it becomes "not so bad"
to use them to level Samarra, or Tikrit, and on from there? Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

There may be little destructive difference between the use of many
non-nuke bombs versus a single atomic one (i.e. Hiroshima versus
Tokyo or Dresden), but I think anything that undermines the "too terrible
to use" belief in nuke use doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.
(Not that I actually believe a full scale nuclear war would necessarily
destroy humanity).


SMH

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:51:14 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

I remember that post.

Surely you will admit that nuclear weaponry comes with a lot of
political "baggage". Just having them is a real turn off to many
people, not necessarily our enemies.

Any discussion of nuclear weapons inevitably becomes political rather
than military and the arguments are emotional rather than practical.
Quite clearly (at least to me), anyone who starts the debate with
"just having them is a real turn off" isn't going to be objective in
the discussion. (I'm not accusing you, Stephen, but merely pointing
out one of the problems.)

If the US were to use nukes, say in the tactical role in eastern
Afghanistan in busting bunkers and caves, do you think the political
fallout (no pun intended) would be worth being concerned about? Would
it be no worse than our current political situation where it *seems*
multilaterists define the politcal, anti-American, climate?

My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
rowdy child.

And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.

Do you have nay concerns over "slippery slope" arguments of nuke use?
The US used them for tactical purposes (perhaps with good result), so
now it's "not so bad" using nukes. Eventually, it becomes "not so bad"
to use them to level Samarra, or Tikrit, and on from there? Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

Here we can view the long experience with deterrence. The "slippery
slope" argument isn't a bad one, but if the results are good, the
political agreement of the justification is obtained (as in my
original scenario) and the US continues to maintain a superpower
military capability applied with justice and supported by deterrence,
it doesn't seem problematic.

There may be little destructive difference between the use of many
non-nuke bombs versus a single atomic one (i.e. Hiroshima versus
Tokyo or Dresden), but I think anything that undermines the "too terrible
to use" belief in nuke use doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.
(Not that I actually believe a full scale nuclear war would necessarily
destroy humanity).

The "too terrible to use" argument is pure emotionalism. And the
linkage to "the future of humanity" is more of the same. It is much
like the objection to napalm or CBU or land mines. Military weapons,
by definition, kill people. The conclusion of that line of reasoning
is that "war is too terrible" and then you find yourself on the
slippery slope to subjugation.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

I haven't the slightest doubt that, if able, Al Qaeda would use nukes
against the United States. That wouldn't require first-use by us.

That was the administration's reasoning when it decided to take out
Saddam, the most likely source of nukes for Al Qaeda.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Any discussion of nuclear weapons inevitably becomes political rather
than military and the arguments are emotional rather than practical.
Quite clearly (at least to me), anyone who starts the debate with
"just having them is a real turn off" isn't going to be objective in
the discussion. (I'm not accusing you, Stephen, but merely pointing
out one of the problems.)

Don't disagree with this observation. Use of nuclear weapons (even
nuclear energy) is fraught with emotional and political bias. But that
is the world in which decisions on use must be made. That's the way
it is, rightfully or not. It simply will not be possible to make a
decision on military use based solely on military concern.

My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
rowdy child.

Well I don't remember experiencing "one spanking" by my daddy and
forever after eschewing the path of wickedness and irresponsibility.
I remember being spanked on many occassions. Color me a slow learner!

This seems to me to be the worst possible use of nuclear weaponry, but
perhaps because I can not see an example of the type of use you were
proposing (sorry, I don't remember the details of your scenario).

Nuking a "trouble spot" in Iraq like Samarra? Making eastern Afghanistan
unlivable and thus no longer a viable hiding spot for Bin Laden? What
of the characteristics of nuclear weapon use that don't exist in
traditional weaponry; specifically residual radiation effects? Is this
quality a part of the weapon's "effective" use?

Outside of World War or where the very existence of the nation is truly
threatened, I just can't picture an example of the use you seem to be
suggesting. Haven't seen one anytime since Nagasaki actually, with the
possible exception of later stages of the Korean War.

Did Vietnam offer a possibility of your possibly strategic, one time
demonstration of nuclear weapon use?

What would you have done if you could have strapped a nuclear bomb on
your Thud and dropped it where you wished in NVN in '65-72? What
would it have accomplished? What of Soviet/Chinese side effects? Even
after a successful use, what of other nations later (e.g. Soviets in
Afghanistan)? Would we live in a safer world?

And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.

I lived in Cameroon a couple years. We definitely don't want Cameroon
making national interest decisions for the US!

Here we can view the long experience with deterrence. The "slippery
slope" argument isn't a bad one, but if the results are good, the
political agreement of the justification is obtained (as in my
original scenario) and the US continues to maintain a superpower
military capability applied with justice and supported by deterrence,
it doesn't seem problematic.

Perhaps the world has a weapon that by its definition, is a deterrent.
It is a deterrent because of those very beliefs and emotions that make
it "too terrible to use". Weaken those [perhaps erroneous] beliefs,
and the deterrence value weakens.

I still wonder if every nation from the US to the Seychelle's had a nuke,
would the world be a safer place? The very fact that two intensely
hostile towards one another, armed to the teeth, military powers faced
each other in intense competition over a period of 50 years, yet never
went to war [directly] against one another is quite remarkable
history. Why did war not happen? Probably lots of reasons, but I
think having "too terrible" weapons at their disposal was a strong
part of it.

The "too terrible to use" argument is pure emotionalism. And the
linkage to "the future of humanity" is more of the same. It is much
like the objection to napalm or CBU or land mines. Military weapons,
by definition, kill people. The conclusion of that line of reasoning
is that "war is too terrible" and then you find yourself on the
slippery slope to subjugation.

The "too terrible" characterization of nukes may very much be nothing
more than emotionalism. But that may be what makes nukes so potent.

Once upon a time, the cross bow was too terrible. Just before WWI, it
was believed total war would no longer occur because it had become "too
terrible". As we know, we got over those self imposed, "emotional"
restrictions. We'll certainly get over similar limits on nukes at some
point in the future.

But at the moment, the freedom and independence of the US is not weakened
by a definition of nuclear weaponry, using primarily political and
emotional terms, as being "too terrible" to actually be used.


SMH