Who Will be First to Go Nuclear

[Steve]

Should there be a deterrent?

There should be deterrent to the very concept of attacking another country and killing its citizens

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

♫We'll meet again,
don't know where,
don't know when...♫

 

[Jack by the hedge]

why ... was instant capitulation so necessary?
They were completely isolated, could be bombed at will. There was no military need to force a surrender at any cost.

What was happening was that Russia was about the take the Northern Japanese Islands, and the US didn't like the idea of the Soviets getting more force projection into the North Pacific.
As many contemporaries have said, the nukes were targeted at Stalin, not the Tenno.

While that is true, the thing that was only pointed out to me just a few years ago, and I'm embarrassed I had never really thought about it before, was the situation of China. Our often-forgotten ally China was still suffering major casualties as Japan's land war there raged on. Had the Western allies and the Soviets settled for a blockade of Japan to stop them venturing out into the Pacific, the lives lost in China would have exceeded those lost in the atomic bombings within a few weeks.

 

[theprestige]

There should be deterrent to the very concept of attacking another country and killing its citizens

And there is such a deterrent. But I meant, anything special, beyond the current framework of treaties, alliances, etc. that deters the use of weapons in general?

 

[arthwollipot]

And there is such a deterrent. But I meant, anything special, beyond the current framework of treaties, alliances, etc. that deters the use of weapons in general?

Is it your suggestion that nuclear weapons aren't any different from conventional weapons?

 

[theprestige]

Is it your suggestion that nuclear weapons aren't any different from conventional weapons?

Weapons come in many varieties, none exactly alike and each with its optimal use cases. Only an idiot would suggest they do not differ from each other. "Conventional" is taxonomic, not empirical or practical.

My suggestion is that nuclear weapons too have legitimate use cases in a just war, and in some scenarios may indeed be the most responsible and humanitarian choice. We shouldn't take them off the table just because it has the scary word "nuclear" in the name.

Ukraine is ruthlessly carpeting its eastern regions with fiber cables, land mines, and other hazards that will have environmental, health, and safety implications for decades to come. Ukraine is ruthlessly causing toxic waste spills and burns on an almost daily basis now, with massive unregulated greenhouse gas emissions resulting, along with - again - environmental, health, and safety implications for decades to come.

The coalition that liberated Kuwait used heavy earth-moving equipment to bury Saddam Hussein's troops alive under their own defensive works. Horrifying to think about, and probably some troops came home psychologically scarred from the realization of what they did. But a lot more of them came home alive than would have, if they had been thrown as a forlorn hope at the enemy walls. Fighting a just war never means putting your own soldiers in harms' way for honor, when more effective means of winning are available.

So yes, it is my suggestion that the environmental, health, and safety concerns about a particular weapon should be carefully considered when selecting it for use. And I think that according to this rubric, and setting aside the knee-jerk reaction to the mention of "nukular" weapons, and the generational boogeyman of global thermonuclear war, nuclear weapons do have their place in the modern arsenal of responsible warfare. It's likely a very niche place, but even so.

---

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both thriving metropoles today. Clearly the long-term environmental impact of limited use of nuclear weapons can be managed.

In the more immediate context, the chief concern with nuclear weapons is the same as their chief advantage: They are extremely powerful explosions. This makes them very attractive, from a humanitarian perspective. More results from fewer sorties means fewer of your own people in harm's way - always a good thing in war, as the Ukrainians have reminded us. Too, more results from fewer sorties means a shorter, faster path to victory. This saves many more lives in the long run, especially when you factor in all the resources that are still available for reconstruction, rather than having been wasted in an inefficient battle for survival.

But that same explosive power makes them less discriminate than lesser weapons. Early on, this meant that they could only be used as city-killers, civilization-enders. And that has biased the entire conversation ever since. But here's something interesting: The west - particularly the US - invested heavily in technologies that would both reduce the minimum effective yield (smaller warheads) while increasing accuracy. A precision strike by a small bunker-busting nuke is an entirely different proposition from a hail-mary airburst over a major city because that's as precise as you can get.

Russia claims credit for the largest nuke ever tested, the Tsar Bomba. But the Tsar Bomba is a joke. It was too heavy to transport in any of their strategic bombers. Its blast was too big for the plane that delivered it to escape its effects. It could not fit onto any practical ballistic missile. While the US was developing smaller, more accurate nukes, the USSR was admitting technolgical defeat and trying to spin it as industrial supremacy.

So I ask, should there be a deterrent against using really big bombs? Yes. Should there be a deterrent against causing long-term environmental, health, and safety problems, in the service of winning a war? Yes. I just don't see how nukes don't already fit into the deterrence framework we apply to every other weapon and strategem of war.

I am not in favor of indiscriminate mass destruction to win wars. But even the Geneva convention accepts collateral damage through overkill, if overkill is the only weapon the commander has available at the moment when the military result is in question.

Our ethical approach to warfare must have nuance, must be willing and able to solve the trolley problem in practice, otherwise we have to condemn the Zelensky regime as perhaps one of the worst environmental and climate criminal organizations since Enron went to Bhopal. And they haven't used even a single nuke so far.

 

[theprestige]

Also, blockades suck. Try peace by blockade, and you end up with Gaza, Hamas, and 10/7. Much better to secure unconditional surrender, impose military occupation and martial law, and permit democratic self-rule only if and when the losing side clearly accepts the loss and clearly shows it is ready to join western civilization as a contributing partner.

 

[acbytesla]

In the more immediate context, the chief concern with nuclear weapons is the same as their chief advantage: They are extremely powerful explosions. This makes them very attractive, from a humanitarian perspective. More results from fewer sorties means fewer of your own people in harm's way - always a good thing in war, as the Ukrainians have reminded us. Too, more results from fewer sorties means a shorter, faster path to victory. This saves many more lives in the long run, especially when you factor in all the resources that are still available for reconstruction, rather than having been wasted in an inefficient battle for survival.

But that same explosive power makes them less discriminate than lesser weapons. Early on, this meant that they could only be used as city-killers, civilization-enders. And that has biased the entire conversation ever since. But here's something interesting: The west - particularly the US - invested heavily in technologies that would both reduce the minimum effective yield (smaller warheads) while increasing accuracy. A precision strike by a small bunker-busting nuke is an entirely different proposition from a hail-mary airburst over a major city because that's as precise as you can get.

Russia claims credit for the largest nuke ever tested, the Tsar Bomba. But the Tsar Bomba is a joke. It was too heavy to transport in any of their strategic bombers. Its blast was too big for the plane that delivered it to escape its effects. It could not fit onto any practical ballistic missile. While the US was developing smaller, more accurate nukes, the USSR was admitting technolgical defeat and trying to spin it as industrial supremacy.

So I ask, should there be a deterrent against using really big bombs? Yes. Should there be a deterrent against causing long-term environmental, health, and safety problems, in the service of winning a war? Yes. I just don't see how nukes don't already fit into the deterrence framework we apply to every other weapon and strategem of war.

I am not in favor of indiscriminate mass destruction to win wars. But even the Geneva convention accepts collateral damage through overkill, if overkill is the only weapon the commander has available at the moment when the military result is in question.

Our ethical approach to warfare must have nuance, must be willing and able to solve the trolley problem in practrice, otherwise we have to condemn the Zelensky regime as perhaps one of the worst environmental and climate criminal organizations since Enron went to Bhopal. And they haven't used even a single nuke so far.

Total nonsense. Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine. Not the other way around. It sent thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of troops into another nation. It bombed and exploded missiles in Ukraine's largest cities. It knocked out power plants at Ukrainian dams and nuclear power plant. It launched missiles at Ukrainian hospitals, schools and much more. Putin has sacrificed his own people indiscriminately.

If Russia wants to end this, it has the power to do it. Pack up and go home.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Conventional" is taxonomic, not empirical or practical.

No, there is a fundamental difference between a chemical explosive (like TNT) and a nuclear explosive. They get their energy in entirely different ways and in different magnitudes.

Also, you're ignoring the historical reality of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. It wasn't just that there were enough nuclear weapons to win a war. There were enough nuclear weapons and protocols in place to actually use them to wipe out all life on earth - not just once, not twice, not even twenty times, but two hundred times over. That's what Mutually Assured Destruction was. A protocol for the utter annihilation of human civilisation. That's why it worked. Nobody wanted to be responsible for extinction.

Nuclear weapons are not the same as conventional ones. They are weapons of mass destuction.

 

[theprestige]

Total nonsense. Russia attacked and invaded Ukraine. Not the other way around. It sent thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of troops into another nation. It bombed and exploded missiles in Ukraine's largest cities. It knocked out power plants at Ukrainian dams and nuclear power plant. It launched missiles at Ukrainian hospitals, schools and much more. Putin has sacrificed his own people indiscriminately.

If Russia wants to end this, it has the power to do it. Pack up and go home.

And in the meantime you'd rather Ukraine continue to cause drastic environmental harm on a global scale, than surrender to Russia. Very commendable. Very much you being in favor of using heinous weapons for noble reasons. We are on the same page so far.

 

[acbytesla]

And in the meantime you'd rather Ukraine continue to cause drastic environmental harm on a global scale, than surrender to Russia. Very commendable. Very much you being in favor of using heinous weapons for noble reasons. We are on the same page so far.

In the meantime I'd like to see someone kill Putin and bring their boys home. You can't appease a nutjob.

 

[arthwollipot]

And in the meantime you'd rather Ukraine continue to cause drastic environmental harm on a global scale, than surrender to Russia. Very commendable. Very much you being in favor of using heinous weapons for noble reasons. We are on the same page so far.

Nuclear weapons would also cause drastic environmental harm on a global scale. Arguably, worse.

 

[acbytesla]

The idea that nuclear weapons is acceptable to anyone is beyond bizarre to me. Yes, it isn't good that Ukraine is hitting Russia's petrochemical infrastructure. And yes that is not good for the environment. But what's the answer? Allow diesel fuel to reach Russia's tanks that is killing Ukrainian citizens? Or should they just give into a corrupt dictator who is oppressing them?

 

[Darat]

The idea that nuclear weapons is acceptable to anyone is beyond bizarre to me. Yes, it isn't good that Ukraine is hitting Russia's petrochemical infrastructure. And yes that is not good for the environment. But what's the answer? Allow diesel fuel to reach Russia's tanks that is killing Ukrainian citizens?
Or should they just give into a corrupt dictator who is oppressing them?

And it's been shown giving in to Trump only makes things worse.