Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
okay, so I would like to know what people would give up to have the nuke never invented. I think that I would have just had to let WW2 keep going. Thoughts on this. Nothing is worth a nuke, in my opinion they are useless as they can't solve anything. War is terrible, but can solve things but nukes will just kill everything. Nukes shouldn't exist and we should be worried about global warming and our enviroment, not blowing each other up.

ON that note if WW3 started tommorow would you enlist? (assuming nukes suddenly didn't work and we had to fight honourable)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Nuclear weaponry was an inevitability, so regardless of what I would have rathered, it definitely would have been invented by someone, some time. Also, I do believe very strongly in a future with a wider use of nuclear energy. Nuclear technology is such that the bomb was the easier part of the equation, so in order to have nuclear power, a bomb -- while not necessary -- would definitely have come first.

Regarding a WW3, I would not enlist. I'm not a pacifist, but in any case that would be irrelevant. I do not think that the vision of what WW3 would be like is much different than was imagined back during the Cold War. Wars that came after the bomb was invented were all very contained or between nations that didn't have nuclear technology at their disposal. At this point, something that could be considered a World War would have to be between nations capable of nuclear attacks. Such wars don't starve for more troops.
 

·
The Orange Grey Knight
Joined
·
4,777 Posts
Well, not directly related, I'm doing aporject in art and scocial statements or something, I'm doing a Razor back with the words "Wars won't stop themselves"

So basically, I think no matter the weapons used, wars don't help, as even if you win, chances are you have a new enemy or two.

All in my humble opinion.

Mike
 

·
Shrug, k...
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
yeah we shouldn't have bothered with the nuke... we can't even use them... we might as well have kept producing all those other bombs and firearms that we use every day.. what a waste of time and money...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
Yeah, the red army rolling through and conquering Europe would have been no big deal. What a waste those nukes through which MAD stopped WW III are.

As for using Nukes on Japan, well they didnt surrender after the first. If Hitler had got his bloody little hands on a nuke and used it on London it would have knocked us out of the war.

Plus the Japanese were working towards thier own nuclear bomb. They would have used it had they got it. They thoroughly proved how evil they were, Singapore, The Burma railway, it couldn't have happened to nicer people (though the citizens werent responsible thier inacction allowed the war to continue).

Finaly, whats the differance between using a nuke to kill 170,000 at Hiroshima and using incendiaries to kill 250,000 in Dresden? dead is dead be it gassed or stabbed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
If the world didn't develop nuclear weapons we would have just developed more advanced chemical or biological weapons.

About WW3 I would enlist as long as it wasn't for a stupid reason. I wouldn't carry a rifle though, I am just not cut out for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,095 Posts
Well I think the Nazis were also working on making a nuke, so if the USA didn't get it first, they probably would.

I'm really just fine with how the nukes were used int he past, but I don't think they should ever have to be used again, unless five billion people turn into zombies and the only way to stop them was to hide underground and nuke the surface...
 

·
God's nutcase
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
Silver Wings said:
If Hitler had got his bloody little hands on a nuke and used it on London it would have knocked us out of the war.
Despite the fact that Hitler was defeated entirely independently of the nuke. The point about the Japanese almost developing a nuke may be valid, but surely that makes it a case of whether we want them to blow up the world or whether we want us to blow up the world. And it almost wipes out any kind of moral high ground that the Allies may have had (not that they had much after the British bombed Dresden to char and the Russians are responsible for the worst case of mass war-rape in history).

Silver Wings said:
Finaly, whats the differance between using a nuke to kill 170,000 at Hiroshima and using incendiaries to kill 250,000 in Dresden?
Residual radiation and the consequent radiation sickness, deformed births, blighting of the landscape and possible nuclear winter, if you're asking what difference nukes themselves make. On pure "casualty" figures, that one incident doesn't seem as bad, but nukes as a concept have far-reaching consequences.
 

·
Shrug, k...
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
hitler may have been defeated without use of the nuke, but he was still largely attempting to develope a nuke of his own when that happened; so i don't think that would make him independent of the whole nuke issue.

and all in all, the point stated in Lord of War is right with nukes not being the real weapons of mass destruction... generations of mass genocide in continued use around the world compared to a weapon that as of yet has mainly been used as an intimidation factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,007 Posts
To be honest I think that the larger destroy a city nuclear weapons are more of a terror weapon, they're more meant to show an enemy that we can destroy a city and we might do it if you attack us, so more of a passive defence weapon than a attack weapon. Why I think so is A) that it destroys too much, really, what's the point to make a town rubble when you're invading it? none, you need the town, the infrastructure etc to wage your war in that country so it's not that good to completely destroy it. B) the laws of war forbids unnecessary casualties of civilians and destruction of buildings etc, and the rest of the world won't accept such an act.
But the smaller so called tactical nuclear weapons will be more useful, instead of destroying more than you need, for example a single submarine with one torpedo can destroy a whole carrier group or one artillery shell can destroy a rally point etc, all of these especially the destruction of a whole carrier group is a heavy blow to any military power and you avoid destroying more than you want.

And enlist, pft, if such a big war as a World War did break out I'd be forced in to duty (or well, I wouldn't be forced in as I'd take pride in defending my country, but some of the soldiers would be) as it says in our glorious conscription laws....
But then again with our pussy goverment we'd change the flag to a Russian one before we even had a chance to defend ourselves...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, I think you can read too much into long term problems. Though I do not dismiss the suffering of its inhabitants.

To quote a Japanese saying: "If you sow the ill wind you will reap the Tornado"

Hitler was trying for a nuke, hence the Telemark raid in Norway. He was defeated before the Japanese but at the cost of millions of allied lives.

Plus, important point the Allies did have a moral high ground cheifly due to:

a) Germany launching invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and the Low countries.
b) This was an act of agression by a non-agreived party. Therefore the buck stops at them.
c) I heard about this Holocaust thing...
d) Hitler launched the Blitz against London and other British cities first.
e) The Japanese are famous for thier disregard of the Geneva convention.

On the Russians, having read Berlin the Downfall by Antony Beevor. Also the author of Stalingrad. I know about the crimes perpetrated by the Red Army. But:

a) We were Germanys enemy more than Russia's friend. Stalin was not a nice person.
b) The Barbarossa invasion was terribe, Lebensraum means get rid of the locals(nastily).

Furthermore is it really "immoral" to kill 400,000 people when an American invasion and continuation of a "conventional" bombing campaign could in the long run have killed far more. I believe Tokyo took similar casualties to the Nuclear bombs from US bombing.
With the prospect of a long defeat many more Japanese people may have commited Hari Kari/died in the defense of the Mainland.
Plus the losses of US/some UK servicemen in a continuing conflict would be a heavy load to bear when they did not start the war and you can end it by killing your enemy.
 

·
Librarian from Hell
Joined
·
4,396 Posts
okay, so I would like to know what people would give up to have the nuke never invented. I think that I would have just had to let WW2 keep going. Thoughts on this. Nothing is worth a nuke, in my opinion they are useless as they can't solve anything. War is terrible, but can solve things but nukes will just kill everything. Nukes shouldn't exist and we should be worried about global warming and our enviroment, not blowing each other up.

ON that note if WW3 started tommorow would you enlist? (assuming nukes suddenly didn't work and we had to fight honourable)

I find the idea of the massdestructive weapons like the Neuclearbombs sickening. So, you claim it ended WW2. Maybe it did put the final nail in the japanese coffin, but seriouserly people...
Hitler (and he pretty much was WW2, right?) was gone and to whipe out two cities just like that.
As if this was not bad enough the continued research on the nukes is what really makes me want to cry. The coldwar stupidity. "Yeah, you might be able to kill us a zillion times but we can kill you two zillion times"..."They can kill us two zillion times, we need more money (sucked from those who really need it shools, medicin, enviromental-stuff) to be able to kill them three zillion times great master"
And meanwhile people were dying. How much have the bombs cost?

If I would enlist was the other question. No I would not. Not in such a categorical way like "for my country" that's why the german army fought for Hitler. It would depend what my country fought for. Would it be a result of how we in the first world bully our poor brothers and sisters around the globe? Would my country fight to defend the suffering hordes of starving AIDS-dying africans or to kill them just to get what ever oilreserves they may have in their ground?
I would try to get my family and myself to a place no one would be interested in occupying, try to live as peaceful as possible. I would defend us against those who wish us ill alright, but I would not go across the globe to defend some mumbojumbo "county"ideal made up a couple of hundred or so years ago. No way. I hope more people will show integrety in difficult situations, not be blinded by what ever warmongering the media pukes out from time to time. Hate them, hate those...they are your enemy.
It's so strange to see how we are led like blind sheep to do or think evil of our fellow humans. Why can we not just have a cup of coffe?

Silver Wings said:
it couldn't have happened to nicer people
That's true I agree, but not only in this situation but all wars. People are nice, quite a few of the humans are indeed the "nicer people", it matters not where we live or who runs our country. We are all mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters. We are all loved and the loss of any human life due to a social disease such as a war is indeed a tragedy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
Do you see any real differance between killing 200,000 people with a single nuclear or lots of conventional bombs?

War is terrible, and Nukes stopped WW III from occuring. Is that a bad thing? or would you rather a huge battle for Europe, USSR v's NATO?

I would fight for my country, I srtongly believe that my country would not got to war on a whim. To protect my family and countries way of life are worth fighting for.
 

·
Librarian from Hell
Joined
·
4,396 Posts
Do you see any real differance between killing 200,000 people with a single nuclear or lots of conventional bombs?
Both yes and no, I must say. I don't say "Why can't we kill 200,000 people the oldfashion way. It's so nice compared to the bomb. The best would be if we strangeled them with our bare hands."
It's just that the destructive capacity of the nukes are so threatening. Any idiot can blow up a major city in a whim. This goes for elected, dictators and terrorists alike. That scares me. To bomb people with conventional bombs takes longer time, more people would have to be involved and hopefully someone could stop it. the people living in the city would have time to (or try to) escape. It wouldn't matter if you escaped the big one. It would still get you a couple of years later. Your kids would be born dead or with grave illness. If they lived and got kids the same could happend to them.

War is terrible, and Nukes stopped WW III from occuring.
Patience young one, patience. WW III will start wether we have nukes or not. Nukes will make it worse I reckon.


I would fight for my country, I srtongly believe that my country would not got to war on a whim.
Would that be at all or again? Do I need to remind you why your county went to Iraq?
To protect my family
I'm all with you on this, I would also use violence to protect my family. I would however like to be the one who chose whom to recieve this violence. I would not like to be on the other side of the globe while my kids scream for help.
and countries way of life are worth fighting for.
This could be true for me as well, but not always. What aspect of our way of life are we talking about, there are so many. On one side we have democracy and that's nice. On the other we have quite a few ,IMO, not so good things that could also be "our way of life" that I wouldn't lift a finger to protect. We suck the thirld world dry, we commit horrible crimes to get energy and money. Our way of life cold be described as our right to die of obesity while others die from starvation. I don't want to kill for that right. I don't want to kill so we can keep on polluting the planet, and that is indeed "our way of life".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,771 Posts
Silver Wings said:
e) The Japanese are famous for thier disregard of the Geneva convention.
Just a small point, but important. The Japanese did not disregard the Geneva Convention, they never signed it. Signing the Geneva Convention is voluntary. Suggesting someone is morally wrong for breaking a law they don't recognize is a bit unfair. For starters we would have nations who have agreed to the Kyoto Protocol attempting to punish the US for "breaking" it when they haven't even signed the thing.

The Japanese at the time had a different conception of how war was to be waged from the western powers. The Allies understood this and accepted that it was their right as a nation to not sign the GC if they so wished. If they didn't then it might have come back later and bit them on the arse when THEY wanted to ignore something every other nation was doing (*cough* Kyoto *cough*)

No one at the time ever suggested the Japanese violated the GC. I've seen leaflets issued to allied troops that say "remember, the Japs haven't signed the Geneva Convention so are not required to provide good treatment to POWs."

People should remember that the ethical conventions of Western Europe are not necessarily those of the world.

As for whether or not I would enlist in a world war, that's tricky for me. I am a cynical pacifist. I think war is the greatest evil there is (yes, worse than tyranny or any other idea or form of government) and nothing should ever be resolved through violence. At the same time I am aware that there are people and nations who will use any excuse they can to go to war and create violence in the world. These people pretty much fit my definition of evil and I think they must be destroyed as they have decided that they won't submit peacefully to non-violent persuasion, or even agree to disagree, like a human being should. I can see no option but to fight them and to destroy them utterly as quickly and efficiently as possible until only people who recognize the inherent evil of all violence are left. Peace to me is more important than anything and is ironically the only ideal worth killing for. This means if I felt threatened I would fight to the best of my ability in whatever capacity I was best suited, to ensure the complete annihilation of the enemy. I think if you are going to war you should have a take no prisoners attitude. Make everyone terrified to fight you and you have peace.

Once violence is removed as a solution people will see what pacifists see, that there really is nothing worth fighting (or dying) for, and life will become a lot less serious and much more pleasant.

As you can see I'm still working this out in my head, so it might not make perfect logical sense. But what I'm trying to say is that the only thing I feel is ultimately worth fighting is the idea that some ideas are worth fighting for. That is evil.

Plus I don't want me or my loved ones to die, which would be my main motivation for participation in a world war. The best chance my loved ones would have would be if I added my skills to the war effort in whatever capacity. Afer all that's what the secondary function of males is (after fathering children), to put themsleves between their families and danger. It's all very murky.
 

·
God's nutcase
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
Silver Wings said:
Do you see any real differance between killing 200,000 people with a single nuclear or lots of conventional bombs?
Radiation. That's my key thing. Nukes do not just damage people (which is bad enough), but they damage the planet too. They have nasty side effects that conventional bombs do not have. It ruins the future as well as the present, and as wars are fought in theory to gain a better future, the whole idea seems a bit self-defeating.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Silver Wings said:
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, I think you can read too much into long term problems. Though I do not dismiss the suffering of its inhabitants.
I've been to both.. and I have friends whose families come from that area. So while I'm not claiming to have some deep amazing insight beyond that of the casual observer, I think it's very easy to dismiss the problems, and forget that behind the bright, industrial present are a lot of people who we don't see because they're either dead or in hospital.

I've never bought the 'we had to do it!' line.. Japanese people are not crazy, they're actually no less rational than any other person in the world. When you invade any country, you will get idiots prepared to defend their sovreignity at all costs.. But realistically, how many causalties would have been incurred from the very few (I believe) idiots who would have followed the governments order to make bamboo spears and fight off a modern, well equipped army with them.

I don't blame the American government completely either, of course. If the Japanese hadn't followed this idiotic 'let's show them how difficult it's going to be to invade us!' policy, and been prepared to saccrifice so many people at Okinawa to demonstrate this, maybe the US wouldn't have got the idea that they weren't going to be able to walk in and take control without senselessly killing millions from the air (The nuclear attacks were actually the tip of the iceberg.. There was one point where that many people were dying every day in Tokyo and other big cities.)

What I do blame the US government for is senselessly chucking in an untested weapon which noone knew the effects of. It's bad enough to kill 200,000 civilians in one day. After all, they're part of the war machine, and it's war. Killing them can be considered neccesary. It's quite another thing to poison their descendants for several generations, resulting in an incredible scale of suffering (and no, don't let the modern prosperity of these cities fool you, there is a lot of suffering, and there has been a lot more in the past) because you've got a new toy you want to show off.

That's the difference.. In my experience Japanese people mourn those who died in the Tokyo firestorm raids, for example, but they don't generally get angry about it. They can rationalise the deaths of those people, because they were helping a government which was, to the modern opinion, inflicting terrible suffering on its own citizens and foreign soldiers to save their own skins. What they find more difficult to rationalise is the images and their own experiences, not often seen or heard in the West (even Godzilla was censored here, for god's sake) of the generation born after the bomb with birth defects and ill health, and the people who still get sick even today just for living in that area. Because that doesn't seem fair to the modern mind.

I'm pro-nuclear myself, I believe strongly in the virtues of nuclear power with proper safety regulation, and I'm prepared to accept that we probably owe millions upon millions of lives to the deterant effect of nuclear weapons. I just hope to god noone ever uses the damn things again, because the only reason people can still live in Hiroshima/Nagasaki is because of the low yield of nuclear weapons at that time.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
The invention of nuclear weapons was inevitable.

Every invention mankind ever 'discovers' is basicly predetermined.

[ 'Uncovers' is more apt in my opinion. I think it was Michaelangelo that said; when asked about where he gets his inspiration for his statues; that, "The statue is already in the stone, all I have to do is knock away the unnecesary bits to uncover it!" or something like that, I forget the exact quote, but the concept is valid. ]

I'm not talking about 'predetermined' by some entity here. ( although I'm also not ruling that out. )

I'm refering to science taking its next inevitable step, followed by its next inevitable step and so on and so on.

It's as simple as discovering that 1 + 1 = 2. If you keep adding numbers long enough, eventually you will 'discover' that there's a lot of them! :) That won't change the fact that those numbers existed long before you did and will continue to exist long after you are gone. They may have been a 'revelation' for you, but to the rest of the universe they have 'always been there'!

My point is that, 'someone' was going to discover them. Thankfully it wasn't the worst group of people that was researching them at the time.

The only way to stop worse weapons from making their way into humanities arsenal is to outlaw science.
I think the Catholic church tried that once, it didn't work out too well for them either. :wacko:

As for enlisting in WW3?

That's kind of a vague question.

Tell me what the war is about, who's fighting it and why did it start? Maybe then I can give you a better answer. As it stands you haven't provided enough information for me to make a concrete decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
robotnik said:
Just a small point, but important. The Japanese did not disregard the Geneva Convention, they never signed it.
So don't sign the Geneva Convention and you can chuck morals out of the window? If they didnt sign it then the attrocities they commited aren't inhumane crimes?
I do not see how your point is important. Sorry.
Furthermore I believe that the US never signed the Geneva Convention (at that time at least) however they still treated POW's as they should have.

I would say the bigest role of Nucler weapons is to keep the peace. No one will start a major war knowing what the consequences will be. As such they have saved lives. If WW III is inevitable (unlikely with global trade interdependence increasing) then at least it will have been delayed.

All war damages the planet. In the First Gulf War a vast ammount of oil was burnt or released into the Sea. 9/11 released clouds of noxious chemicals the impact of which is only just begining to be realised. While long term radiation is an evil, it is one which (thanks to nuclear weapons) is unlikely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,771 Posts
Silver Wings said:
So don't sign the Geneva Convention and you can chuck morals out of the window?
The morals represented by the thing you don't recognize, yes.
Silver Wings said:
If they didnt sign it then the attrocities they commited aren't inhumane crimes?
Not in their eyes, no. They were a necessary part of the definition of "war."

Don't get me wrong, Australian soliders suffered unusually at the hands of the Japanese, to the point where there is still a large amount of suspicion towards the Japanese here, especially in the older generations. Many Australians have grandparents who were tortured and starved in POW camps. Japanese submarines attacked Sydney Harbour and the only time Australia has ever been atatcked directly on her home soil was by Japanese bombers.

My grandfather was an intelligence officer who interrogated Japanese prisoners, and interestingly enough he has always refused to elaborate on the methods he used. No one is innocent in war. I'm deeply suspicious of attempts to claim moral high ground for a war, but that's just me and I won't mention it further.

All I'm saying is that while the western powers regarded the Japanese as barbaric for not signing (after all, the GC represented western moral traditions), they never suggested that every nation had to sign it. It was sort of a measure of who was in the European power's old boy's club and who wasn't. It is significant that the US also didn't sign.
Silver Wings said:
I do not see how your point is important. Sorry.
It's important because there's a big difference between signing an agreement and then breaking it, and not abiding by a set of optional rules. One is breaking a law, the other is not.

Silver Wings said:
Furthermore I believe that the US never signed the Geneva Convention (at that time at least) however they still treated POW's as they should have.
Because the GC was a reflection of their culture (western christianity) in the first place, of course they found violations of it distasteful. Do you see what I'm getting at? Very few things are universal. But maybe I'm being unnecessarily pedantic. *shrugs*
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top