Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Why not? We did.
We annihilated two civilian cities in a foreign nation with nuclear weapons to win a war and suffered no retaliation for it because our nuclear weapons were so powerful and so unstoppable that there was no possible resistance that could have been given to them.
That's not speculation. That's history. One-sided nuclear checkmate has ended a war immediately in the favor of the side employing it before. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation, why couldn't it be done again?
If only one country had nuclear weapons, the decision to employ them strikes me as a question of when, not if. The option would always be on the table in every negotiation, every border skirmish, every open war. As opposed to being unthinkable as it is today.
edited 14th Jan '16 11:00:35 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.To be honest, the reason I'm afraid of the United States having nukes is less about the question of what if Mother Russia decides to take over the world and more about what happens if we get President Trump or his equivalent.
Which is not to say that I want our nuclear arsenal to be as ridiculously outdated as it is. If we're going to have one, we had might as well make it modern and effective. I would rather scrap it than rebuild it, though.
edited 14th Jan '16 11:19:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The sad fact is that the biggest factor in preventing a war between the major powers is that the Americans/Russians/Chinese/French/British/etc have the ability to annihilate each other and their allies and kill hundreds of millions of people in an instant. Because these countries aren't run by suicidal lunatics, this has more or less prevented any open warfare between great powers. We've had a few close calls but the last 70 years have been some of the most peaceful years in human history. For some parts of the world at least.
Unless everyone commits to complete nuclear disarmament, then its actually beneficial for several nations to have nuclear weapons (provided their stocks stay under their control). And this disarmed world might be prone to more conventional conflicts.
edited 14th Jan '16 11:37:30 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.However, the same rule that states that, "If anyone has them, everyone wants them," also works in reverse. If we all disarm, slowly and mutually, then nobody has to feel that they are the "suckers" in the deal.
edited 14th Jan '16 11:21:55 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No way to verify if the other guy is if the other guy only plays at it. Everyone will think the same.
And then you have the little shits who don't have them who will wait for everyone to disarm...and then arm themselves.
Because thats another problem: Even if the weapons are destroyed, there isn't much preventing an industrialized nation from pursuing them, since the technological knowledge will still exist, especially if there is no fear of nuclear retaliation.
Yes, that's how it would have to go. And that's very unlikely. So our best option to maintain peace is holding a gun to our species' collective head.
Also true. Almost every First World country (and a lot of developing nations) that aren't under global sanctions has breakout capability.
edited 14th Jan '16 11:28:21 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.We annihilated two civilian cities in a foreign nation with nuclear weapons to win a war and suffered no retaliation for it because our nuclear weapons were so powerful and so unstoppable that there was no possible resistance that could have been given to them.
That is not "taking over the world" as it is "Doing sadistic shit out of sheer fear", silly
Getting rid of nukes might result in better terms, or it might turn out how
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal predicts.
Japan was already beaten by the time the bomb's were dropped. It was just a matter of what terms the peace would be on, we wanted unconditional surrender, they didn't. Had it been just to atomic bombs at the start of the conflict I doubt they would have surrendered.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
X3 Thing is nobody said Russia would try and take over the world if the US didn't have nukes. It might try for Eastern Europe though, China might try for Taiwan and North Korea would likely try for South Korea.
Plane With Confederate Flag Reading ‘No Votes for Turncoats’ Paid to Fly Over GOP Debate.
RE: Hiroshima/Nagasaki
That one's complex for a couple reasons.
- 1) The US was in a race against Russia to get there first, for similar reasons as what Operation: Paperclip did (we wanted their scientists to prep for the Cold War).
- 2) Japanese culture at the time was still very rooted in the Bushido Code, so there were valid concerns that trying a conventional invasion would result in more civilian casualties than just dropping the two bombs did.
At this point it's better for one's sanity to watch the talk and comedy show recaps.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It was Truman, and it was more for trying to go over the president's head than for wanting to use nukes. Truman is the only person to have ever ordered the use of nuclear weapons in war. He's the only person we can say for a fact would not shy from atomic bombing if the situation warranted it.
If I recall, Eisenhower condemned using the bombs on Japan, but when he was elected, he also implied that he'd nuke Chinese cities as a way of coaxing them to the negotiation table.