Cooperation with evil - nuclear weapons

[jfz178]

We do have smaller weapons and we have variable yield weapons. But it is the nature of the situation that only so much damage can be contained. You can do a penetrative ground burst to contain initial civilian damage, but that causes more radioactive fallout. A low airburst is going to kill a lot of people on the ground but have less lasting effects. A high-altitude airburst may not kill anyone, but could create EMP that would knock out all infrastructure and leave the area in a post-apocalyptic state, possibly resulting in more deaths than the first two.

War is hell. Nuclear war is one of the deepest rings of hell. But we are here free to talk about it because people are willing to go there on our behalf. It is a reality of the modern world. The idea of unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream as long as any banana republic can get ahold of the technology. Our most moral option is to do it as sanely, morally and effectively as we can. This is not directed at anyone particular here, but making pollyanna statements about “Oh if it’s this, it’s moral, but if it’s that it’s not” sound great, but the situation is much more complex.

 

[edwest211]

The situation is pretty simple:

1. The general public knows little about nuclear weapons and the different types.
2. Sure, we can let them, whoever they are, hit us with a nuclear weapon. If you die, it won’t be your fault.
3. It is false - 100%, to believe that anyone can get or build a nuclear weapon. The general public does not know the basics of building one. And shouldn’t since any potential enemy could try to duplicate any number of ways to do it.
4. There are other weapon systems that are described in the military literature that are more precise, and non-nuclear, but no point in mentioning them here.

The people involved in launching nuclear weapons are not the decision makers. They do go through drills where an imminent attack scenario is given to them. They do not have the final launch authorization but everything happens right up to the final go-ahead. Then, they may not be even told it was a drill. They are simply told to end their preparations. The end. All of this is monitored to put all those involved through a real-world scenario to make sure they do their jobs.

Go ahead, anybody. Call the Pentagon.

 

[MonteRCMS]

You realize that most people in the military do not stay beyond one enlistment. But they learn.

The military has veterans educational benefits.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The United States used to have about 30,000 nuclear weapons. All sizes and shapes. Tested thousands of them to learn the “weapons effects”.

You can actually visit Amazon and buy a book “Nuclear Weapons of the United States”, … printed in China … no, really! … used to be top secret or higher. But now you can buy it courtesy of China.

At some point, it was decided we didn’t really need so many of them, so we got rid of about 80% or more of them. And we used the refined uranium and the plutonium to make fuel for reactors.

The Russians, it turned out, had around 40,000 nuclear weapons. But they also reduced the numbers.

You can research it but the total now is much lower. Much lower.

The “surplus” uranium and plutonium was converted to fuel for power reactors. MOX. You can look it up.

 

[MPat]

Your trial subscription has expired. If you have any further interest in the factual history of the end game of the Pacific theater in WWII, post a question, for consideration. Any trolling topics will, at most, receive a suggestion of a randomly selected book on the general subject. Possibly.

Only such suggestion here, re: average deaths/month, Frank/DOWNFALL, pp. 160-165 and Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, pp.137-139 (from a number of such sources available). By 1945, the deaths in the theater averaged somewhere between 100,000+ and 200,000-250,000/month. All deaths:military, civilian, Allied, indigenous folk, young,old, battle, atrocities, slave labor, executions, all, excluding Japs in some estimates. This is the background butchers’ bill that the surrender cut short.That would continue, until the surrender.

No need to thank me.

Well, who would have guessed! Looks like I achieved something like an unconditional surrender (given that the actual words “I was wrong.” are practically unheard of around here) - and I didn’t have to bomb any civilians.

Of course, when one ends up having to defend the claim that war causalities have a “steady pace”, independent of, let’s say, sides attacking, defending or just waiting, things are already bad enough…

Naturally, the closest thing that could have been said in “support” of such a ridiculous claim proved to be “averaged somewhere between 100,000+ and 200,000-250,000/month” - which is definitely not “steady pace”…

 

[GKMotley]

Nope. The steady state is the variable amount of deaths, which accumulated steadily, monthly, at that point around 200,000 per month, until August 1945,and the Japanese capitulation ends the gruesome, inexorable additions, save for small numbers, singletons such as Tony Marchione, 18 August, continuing for each month the war formally continued, as long that might be. Another month, another increment of deaths, steadily, and circumstances will cause it to grow. Say, with the opening of Operation Zipper, scheduled for the first week of September or, more significantly, Operation Olympic,roughly 2 months later. All estimates are estimates (I doubt any single month had the precise number of any of the estimates), but the deaths continue steadily, in increments predicable from the preceding history, since 1937. Until 2 bombs and the machinations of Suzuki, Togo, and a read-in Emperor caused the final acceptance of the Potsdam declaration after the rigged gozen kaigan, 9-10 August, and about 3 days of confusion, leading to the full acceptance by the full cabinet (a technical requirement)of the Emperor’s 2nd statement of his position.

So, no surrender. Save the Japanese, after the bombs.

You are lead astray by your assumptions, occasioned, I would guess, by your basic ignorance of the subject.

 

[MPat]

Nope. The steady state is the variable amount of deaths,

So, “steady” means “variable” now…?

All estimates are estimates (I doubt any single month had the precise number of any of the estimates), but the deaths continue steadily, in increments predicable from the preceding history, since 1937.

So, we don’t even have precise numbers, but we are supposed to be able to extrapolate from them infallibly? When even extrapolation from precise numbers is notoriously unreliable?

Not to mention that those numbers depend on the decision under consideration: decide to stop trying to kill civilians, and less civilians are going to be killed each month.

You know, I would have thought your position is not so hopelessly weak, as to require all that…

You are lead astray by your assumptions, occasioned, I would guess, by your basic ignorance of the subject.

You know, you could at least try to list those “assumptions”…

 

[FiveLinden]

The thing is, in Catholic teaching the end never justifies the means. You cannot commit a sin to avoid evil. I don’t understand why posters are not engaging directly with this.

 

[GKMotley]

Nope. You’re hopeless. You can get the precise number of atomic bombs dropped, but all figures on the casualties resulting are estimates. It’s the nature of the beast, in war. And yes, one can draw conclusions from estimates, including those stretching over 8 years, steadily.

If it brings you comfort to believe, or even only to state these, your conclusions, it is of no concern to me.

We are done. But, sincerely, have a Merry Christmas. And there’s a reading list above I can recommend, which can be expanded, as I mentioned. I own them all.

 

[GKMotley]

Yes, I know. And you should affirm that, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

 

[MPat]

The thing is, in Catholic teaching the end never justifies the means. You cannot commit a sin to avoid evil. I don’t understand why posters are not engaging directly with this.

Yes, it does solve the question right away.

Thus the side supporting targeting of civilians has to embrace consequentialism. But even this false doctrine has to be supplemented with vague slogans like “Nuclear bombs saved lives.”. And I was trying to explore of what is behind such slogans.

And, apparently, not much is behind them. There are many assumptions that clash one with another. For example, Chinese Civil War has to be ignored, because, apparently, no one thought it was going to happen (at least Chiang Kai-shek knew that it is going to happen, so one didn’t have to be much of a prophet for that). But we are supposed to know for sure how many lives are going to be lost each month of war - extrapolation from unreliable data is claimed to be sufficient for that.

Nor is there much from philosophical side - it proved impossible to get GKMotley to see that demand to minimise the number of death would also forbid hanging of German and Japanese war criminals. This conclusion (that babies have to be killed, but war criminals have to be left alive) would be a bit too obviously uncomfortable, and there is nowhere to deviate from the reasoning, thus, just ignoring it and claiming “trolling” looks like the only response.

I own them all.

And we are supposed to care about that, because…?

We are done.

Weren’t we “done” a couple of posts ago as well?

But, sincerely, have a Merry Christmas.

Have a Merry Christmas as well.

 

[GKMotley]

Hopeless.

Because it facilitates my making the titles known to you. For your education. Oh. Wait. I see your point.

War ends, criminal justice begins. It one wanted to end the war with no deaths, do not engage in the war. If one wants to end the war with the fewest deaths, and with the goals one is in the war to achieve, end the war expeditiously. If one wants no capital punishment after the war, abolish capital punishment. If one wants capital punishment after the war, but the fewest deaths including non-war executions, end the war with the fewest deaths, consider the capital punishments after. Delta of capital punishment deaths added to fewer war deaths, fewer deaths overall.

Yep. We were. But your coat-trailing permits me to pad my post count. For as long as that has an appeal

More packages to wrap now.

 

[MPat]

Because it facilitates my making the titles known to you. For your education. Oh. Wait. I see your point.

You proclaiming that you own those books somehow tells me their titles?

And if you merely borrowed them in a library, or have seen reviews of them, you wouldn’t be able to tell me their titles?

No. You didn’t say that for my education. You were bragging.

Now, of course, I know that your argument is mostly “Just trust me, I’m an expert, and you are not!”, and it is hard to pull that off without any bragging. But still, that’s a bit too clumsy.

War ends, criminal justice begins. It one wanted to end the war with no deaths, do not engage in the war. If one wants to end the war with the fewest deaths, and with the goals one is in the war to achieve, end the war expeditiously. If one wants no capital punishment after the war, abolish capital punishment. If one wants capital punishment after the war, but the fewest deaths including non-war executions, end the war with the fewest deaths, consider the capital punishments after. Delta of capital punishment deaths added to fewer war deaths, fewer deaths overall.

You know, such mess that tries to avoid actual application of the principle you claim to have (that one should try to minimise the number of men killed) in such a clumsy way does not really make you look like an expert…

 

[GKMotley]

Of course it’s bragging. A minimal example. If I truly wanted to max it out, I’d mention the total number of books I own. I worked in a library for 5 years, in the rare book biz for 4, the retail mall side for 8. I never borrow books. I buy them.

3 more packages to wrap. No bragging.

 

[edwest211]

Of course, cooperation with evil is wrong, but what about these:

Execution of war criminals.

Legitimate defense against an enemy that threatens us or our allies. Example: Winston Churchill knew that British industry could not produce enough weapons to defeat the enemy, so he appealed to the United States for arms and equipment. “Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job.” And he got them under a program called Lend-Lease.

In the case of nuclear weapons, we have legitimate defense needs. In a crime, if an unarmed man is shot by a criminal for his money and dies, who is cooperating with evil? “Yer money or yer life.” Even if the victim had a gun, he is surprised and is killed, even as he tries to pull it.

Are there ways to stop a nuclear armed group or State without using nuclear weapons? Yes.

 

[MPat]

Of course it’s bragging. A minimal example. If I truly wanted to max it out, I’d mention the total number of books I own. I worked in a library for 5 years, in the rare book biz for 4, the retail mall side for 8. I never borrow books. I buy them.

I guess that does finish off this part of discussion…

All that is left seems to be one question: what effect, in your opinion, does such bragging have? Do you think it makes people more or less likely to accept what you say? Do you think it makes you look more or less like an expert? Does it make you feel better or worse? And what is its goal?

 

[GKMotley]

It’s the appropriate exchange between a poster with full bookcases on the subject, and vapid historical vacuum as respondent. Three books related to the topic received as gifts today.

If by this part, you mean this discussion, you are correct.

 

[MPat]

It’s the appropriate exchange between a poster with full bookcases on the subject, and vapid historical vacuum as respondent. Three books related to the topic received as gifts today.

If by this part, you mean this discussion, you are correct.

Now, of course, that doesn’t answer my questions directly.

But indirectly it does: bragging does not make you more persuasive, and, apparently, you are aware of that. But it does make you feel better - in the short run.

Yet, you know, “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:12)…

 

[MonteRCMS]

Just to add some grist to the nuclear mill:

More reading:

On Thermonuclear War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Subject Political science
International security
Military policy
Nuclear warfare
Nuclear strategy
Publisher Princeton University Press (1960)
Transaction Publishers (2007)
Pages 668

 

[GKMotley]

Book worth reading, with retro relevance to earlier periods of war. Like 15 years earlier.