Is a nuclear strike ever justifiable?

[UGLYdumpling]

I could see in a country like North Korea where Kim Jong-il and his dead father are worshiped as gods and the people rehearse performances for the great leader every day of the year ... I could see in such an environment one could quite easily convince the population to support a nuclear attack.

The political decision in the U.S. to drop a nuclear bomb would be as radioactive to the administration as the bomb itself on it's target. I can't see how a sitting president NOW would want that on their record. The socioeconomic status of the U.S. is in such dire straits I think an attack of this magnitude would throw the country into a full-on tailspin.

 

[Leminnes]

on an aggressor to save american lives. 100% justified.

I don't really agree. Save American soldier's lives by killing millions of innocent people? 100%? The Japanese are still suffering from what we did.


Edit: I honestly think we're lucky that the Japanese aren't the vengeful type.

 

[nik]

Is all I have to say.

 

[FaTony]

pics

Is all I have to say.

[Heavy]Pow! Ha ha![/Heavy]

 

[Numerous]

If there's some potential threat that has more potential for epic damage, and it's likely to actually do that damage, then it's justified.

So basically, it's only justified if it's justified. If aliens came and were planning to wipe out all life on earth, then you wouldn't have any qualms nuking them. So ultimately, it comes down to how desperate the situation is.

 

[Ginger]

Ofc it's not justified, but tbh the only reason we have nukes is almost like in school where you make mates with the tough nuts so when someone thinks of hurting you they no it'l only get worse, 2 countries with nukes is better than 2 countries with only 1 nuke in one is terrible, think, i wouldn't fire a nuke at someone that can easily blow me up as well

 

[drp]

I don't really agree. Save American soldier's lives by killing millions of innocent people? 100%? The Japanese are still suffering from what we did.


Edit: I honestly think we're lucky that the Japanese aren't the vengeful type.

in WW2, number of deaths was a way to tell whose bombing runs where more successful.

the japanese empire choose to attack pearl harbor. they ultimately felt the harsh consequences that came with that. now, if we had surprised attack japan and started the war, then nuked them, id agree with you.

ive always felt that the aggressor deserves everything they get. and i still feel the same way about the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict.

and even if the japanese were the vengeful type, they really dont have a military other than what the US lets them have for defense purposes. part of the agreement that ended the pacific war.

 

[lana]

Nuclear Weapons are a Mexican standoff. It is all about deterrence and stalemates.

Nuclear Weapons are a Blast Out. The current state we are in (I refer to it as Failsafe mode) is the Mexican Standoff. We're all holding guns except that the guns also kill your immediate family and everyone you've ever seen and isn't currently holding a gun that kills everything ever.

I don't really agree. Save American soldier's lives by killing millions of innocent people? 100%? The Japanese are still suffering from what we did.


Edit: I honestly think we're lucky that the Japanese aren't the vengeful type.

The Japanese would never have stopped fighting. We don't drop the bomb.
Situation 1: Japanese navy continues to fight after the fall of the Axis. Advancing on Okinawa, American forces win a war of attrition and Japan is reverted to Insurgency.
Situation 2: Japan musters enough soldiers and morale to push America back, forcing any other nations still part of the Allies and capable of fighting to join in. Nobody who was knocked out gets aid, leaving Italy in freefall, France in a state of post war destruction, any captured country in total disarray, and Germany able to rebuild the Reich.
Situation 3: Japan does the above and nobody helps America. We lose most of our territory and attempt to surrender, while Japan does not accept it and continues to destroy America's army, eventually becoming an unstoppable juggernaut that takes over most of North America and Asia.
Situation 4: War ends some other way and the nuclear weapon never becomes a peace weapon. Nations continue to wage wars throughout the era with no threat of a bomb dropping. France goes to war with Germany, Italy with France, America with Mexico (again), and Russia attacks everyone.

in WW2, number of deaths was a way to tell whose bombing runs where more successful.

the japanese empire choose to attack pearl harbor. they ultimately felt the harsh consequences that came with that. now, if we had surprised attack japan and started the war, then nuked them, id agree with you.

ive always felt that the aggressor deserves everything they get. and i still feel the same way about the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict.

Risk rules: defenders always win a tie.

 

[UGLYdumpling]

Since this miserable profit-centric culture of ours only looks at the world in terms of money, let's look at this question through their lens. Simply put, there is no profit in atomically deconstructing all those potential consumers.

There's FAR FAR more wealth generated in conventional wars for the global military industrial complex.

The greater threat to us all is peak oil, not atomic nuclear weapons.

Ten billion people, the end of cheap oil coupled with an unwillingness for the public living 'the dream' to acknowledge how all of what we've built is utterly dependent on cheap oil.
What happens when oil is $300 a barrel? Something far more trans-formative than dropping an atomic weapon on our heads.

" I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but world War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - A.Einstein

 

[lana]

Actually I looked at it from the perspective of nuclear weapons keep the peace.

 

[UGLYdumpling]

I just hope we don't blow ourselves up before we reach our next stage of evolution.

 

[Leminnes]

I just hope we don't blow ourselves up before we reach our next stage of evolution.

It's going to take us a while to evolve past our current state. Heathcare, medical advances, and longer lives have slowed down evolution significantly. There's smaller changes that happen here or there, but people who were generally unheathly or unfit for reproducing are now surpassing natural selection. Many people believe our next "evolution" will be caused by Artificial Selection instead of Natural Selection.

 

[lana]

I just hope we don't blow ourselves up before we reach our next stage of evolution.

Evolution has stopped for us. We have no reason to evolve. Most likely, the next thing to happen is widespread polydactyly.

 

[Terr]

Homeobox genes are the win. Takes a relative small change to do things like an extra set of legs, although generally they won't be an advantage if made.