I live in the UK where, or course, we do have an arsenal of nukes.

I don't like them one bit. I think that we should scrap them. Mainly because:

1. They cost a huge amount of money which could be better spent on schools, hospitals, and things that actually benefit people.

2. We will never use them.

3. If we did use them, it would mean the world as we know it was in the process of being destroyed. I want no part in that.

4. It is hypocritical of us to say that other nations should not be allowed nukes, when we posess them ourselves. Our posession of nuclear weapons is an encouragement to other nations to want them for themselves. Only by disarming our own can we truly be a voice for global disarmament.

5. Our nuclear weapons make us a target in the event that there was a nuclear war.

I'm not sure, but I think there is something to the argument that they can be a stabilizing force if only rational people control them. If irrational people control them and mutually assured destruction isn't a disincentive then they'd be very destabilizing.

But would WW2 have carried on without nuclear weapons, and would the cold war have actually ended up as a conventional war that happened rather than a nuclear war that didn't happen? I'm not sure.

I also don't "think the genie is out of the bottle so let's forget about enforcing non-proliferation"; developing nuclear weapons is still a very difficult, expensive, lengthy process (thank god), and we can work against it happening.

"would WW2 have carried on without nuclear weapons?"

No. Germany and Italy were defeated without the use or threat of nuclear weapons. Japan would have taken longer to surrender without the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it was still close to defeat even before those war crimes were committed.

Would less people have died in World War 2 had America not elected to use nuclear weapons on Japan?

>No
Of course it would have ended eventually, I meant to say would it have carried on longer. spyman put it better; in the end was the human cost higher or lower because of nuclear weapons? I don't think that can be answered yes or no for sure, arguments could be made for either, but it's something worth considering if you consider nuclear weapons to be evil incarnate

'I don't think that can be answered yes or no for sure, arguments could be made for either'

What do military historians say?

>What do military historians say?
If there's a consensus I don't know what it is, maybe someone knows

"What do military historians say?"

I think the general consensus is "don't know, but possibly more would have died if the war had continued".

Somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people died due to the atomic bombings (both in terms of people who died immediately and those who died of radiation-related illnesses later on). So for comparison you would need to know how many more US and Japanese troops, and japanese civilians, would have died if the war had continued by conventional means. The battles to capture Iwo Jima and Okinawa cost 25,000 and (roughly) 190,000 total casualties combined. Therefore it could be suggested that more casualties would have been caused by a US invasion of Japan proper, as the fighting would be highly intense. However this is difficult to judge, as this, of course, never happened, and it is difficult to guess the point at which Japan would have surrendered. I say this particularly in light of the fact that it can be argued that the decision by the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan on August 9th actually had more influence on the Japanese surrender than the atomic bombs did.

"Would less people have died in World War 2 had America not elected to use nuclear weapons on Japan?"

I'd also make a difference regarding two things:

1 - The long term effects on the quality of life of those affected.
2 - The number of civilians killed in each scenario.

@ Xapi: I was talking about civilian casualties too.

This thread is turning into a discussion of Hiroshima / Nagasaki, but to be honest I was more interested in what people thought about the CURRENT situation regarding our possession of nuclear weapons?

Without a perspective of how nuclear weapons has changed modern warfare based on history I don't think you can have a well informed view on it. If you asked someone in 1900 "would it be a good idea if each of the big countries could push a button and destroy the world" anyone would say "no, of course not", but with some historical perspective you can see how maybe it's not such a bad thing, maybe even a good thing

(I agree that Hiroshima isn't such a good thing to look at regarding modern non-conventional warfare, but the lessons from the cold war are still valid)

I'm not sure why the civilian deaths on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are held to such a different standard than the fighting in Europe. Was it because two bombs did so much damage? Or because the effects lingered for so long? But killing civilians was an accepted part of warfare for both sides in Europe. The bombings of London, the fire-bombing of Dresden (and many more cities in Germany) - terrorizing civilians was seen as an effective way of demoralizing the enemy.

So why the difference in Japan? Why is there even a question after all this time as to whether more would have died if the US kept fighting until they could land troops on the home islands. If the US had firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed the same number of civilians, would we still have this question?

Excuse me, Kestasjk, but did you say, a bomb that can take out millions, render the with earth poison so that nothing can grow for hundreds of years, and poison our global water supply is a good thing?

Really?

No, really?

The bombs spared a 1,000,000 American lives and about 5,000,000 Japanese lives. Those were the estimates from American gernarals preparing form the invasion of the home islands.

To say the bombs did more damage is just incorect. If you want to say they were devastating and destructive beyond even the imagination of the biggest sceptics is what we can all agree.

It was a cold and calculated decision that American president made to save more lives in the long run and as cold as that may sound it is very difficult to judge what if scenarios.

Currently a drive to disarm nuclear weapons lead by the US would have the greatest effect on the world.

At present however Nuclear countries have an entirely fair system in place to discourage nuclear proliferation. They allow other countries sign a treaty which guarentees them suppport in developing peaceful nuclear power in exchange for those countries agreeing not to develope nuclear weapons.

Any sanctions based on failure to live up to the responcibilities of this treaty are fairly just under international law. (though most sanctions seem to come under the UN's chartered responcibility to maintain stability and peace in the world.)

> Excuse me, Kestasjk, but did you say, a bomb that can take out millions, render the
> with earth poison so that nothing can grow for hundreds of years, and poison our
> global water supply is a good thing?
>
> Really?
>
> No, really?
If they're never used, but prevent conventional wars, then that'd make them a good thing. (I never said they were for sure, I said if and maybe, I think it'll be something we'll need to look back on to decide.)
As I said earlier maybe the cold war would have been fought if nuclear weapons hadn't existed, that alone would make them a good thing up to this point in history, and would make the question about whether they'll do more damage than they've prevented in the future

"Would less people have died in World War 2 had America not elected to use nuclear weapons on Japan?"

I'm not going to read the rest of this, but I believe the answer to this question is undeniably yes. (This is my memory) but I think I remember seeing in the DDay Museum that I went to once, that the prediction of an invasion of Japan proper would have cost 3 million lives. Although that seems incredibly high. I'll try to find something to support this later. Or I may just forget..

(I think you mean "undeniably no", rlumley, based on the rest of your post. The question is a bit of a double negative

I think that one of the arguements for the use of nuclear weapons against japan was to show what they were capable of. To further show that the US was willing to use them.

They could have targeted a military target instead of civilian ones, and i think if memory serves, Nagasaki was plan B, a military target for plan A was only scrapped on the day due to cloud cover obscuring the target.

Never-the-less, Japan declared was against the United States, and the actions taken to defend the US were morale. A strict sense of honour prevented the Japanese from considering surrender, as it brought great shame upon them. So it is arguable that the use of the bomb was a neccessary component in convincing the Japanese militrary leaders to surrender.

DJ,
You ask, somewhat rhetorically, "Was it because two bombs did so much damage? Or because the effects lingered for so long?"

Simple answers would be, yes and yes.

What happened to Japan was a case of "Let's see what happens when we do this." All justifications were after the fact, as a reason to excuse the horrific damage and to gain power points.

In our present time we are dealing with two realities: 1) That nuclear power is the most clean and efficient way to provide energy as we have at the moment -- although we are still unsure what to do with the waste of it, nor are we clear what the long term damage to our planet will be once seepage becomes more real.

2) That from this energy source we also have the ability to make bombs that can kill on such a massive scale that the thread on abortion seems trite.

Kestasjk writes: " I'm not sure, but I think there is something to the argument that they can be a stabilizing force if only rational people control them."

And every nation state and terrorist group is headed by "rational" people. Riiiight.

Therein lies the frightening truth: One crazy fucker can kill millions, and damage the planet for generations to come.

For me this makes clear that we have to press our politicians into signing the test-ban treaty, and to guard us against those who don't. Even this is a weak solution. As DJ points out, the genie is out of the bottle (although likening nuclear bombs to air is to me a oxy-moronic metaphor), so what we do as a people to support ways of dealing with each other without life ending threat has to be worth all of our consideration and action.

@ Kestasjk,
That is a really interesting point you make about the cold war.

Heh. Yeah. Thanks Kestas.

> One crazy fucker can kill millions, and damage the planet for generations to come.
Well it takes a lot more than one person to develop a nuclear weapon (a /lot/ more), and it takes a lot more than one person to launch a developed nuclear weapon, so I don't think what you said is true
(Also I think you should double-check the meaning of oxymoron before you next use it)

>That is a really interesting point you make about the cold war.
Glad you think so, and I can see your POV, I just think it's not a black and white thing (it never is)

Thinking more, the problem is the nation state is not as powerful on a global level as it once was. Proof of that is that Terrorist groups are now having an effect outside the borders of their countries.

I don't think we need to worry that the US, Britain or Russia will use one, it's the fundamentalist factions and Dictatorships that are of the greatest concern.

This has been considered in academic circles, probably since forever ( A more recent take is this Interesting article written in 1992, which pretty much predicts the likeliness of events such as 9/11 -- http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199203/barber) But our media doesn't discuss it much so for those who are not currently studying these issues or well read the ideas here are not even ones they consider . One of the things that impressed me about US President Obama, is that he has talked about it, both before and after he got elected.

So we need to really know how our behaviour, both personal/societal (in terms of our use of resources and requirement for others to believe and act the same as we do in order to know and trust them) and global in terms of shared resources and how we deal with those who may not give a shit about anything other than getting back at those who have more than them and who are restricting their freedom to kill whomever they want for what ever reason they decide so that their angry tribe (and way of life -- for good or bad) can survive.

Nuclear weapons are just over kill when it comes to dealing with these factions. It's the wrong tool for the job and our biggest threat is by the stable nations having these bombs, so too can a tiny faction that finds justice in over kill.

yeah, but the cold war did involve causalties on both sides.

Czechoslovak(1948), Greek civil war (1940s), Korea(1950), Iran coup(1953), Vietnam, several proxy wars in africa, Afghanistan(1979).

Several invasions by both sides which didn't resolve the overall conflict because neither was willing to risk a direct confrontation.

Perhaps it would have been better if the allies had gone ahead with operation unthinkable.( http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/pages/002.htm )

an invasion of the soviet union just after the surrender of Germany. This might have prevented the cold war completely. (and removed the threat of communism, and allowed many politicians with a socialist bent to forward their proposals without fear of being labelled as communist spies.)

But beyond discussing hypotheticals. Until last octobr i would have said a nuclear deterent was unimportant. Then Russia invaded Georgia (to protect Russian 'citizens', ie those individuals who had been living in the two georgian break-away provinces and who had been given russian passports)

That said Obama then agreed to alter US plans for a missile defence system and may be looking at respecting Russia's sphere of militrary influence. (perhaps in the hopes of encouraging Russian to go down the same path China has, that of economic
inter-dependance with the rest of the world, where neither party wants to see the other fail)

@ Kestasjk,
Yes, well Hitler managed to get the help he need to do what he did using the technology of that time. Imagine if he'd had a button to press.

Oh and Kim Jon Il has his population under his control on pain of torture and death at present.

[W]e must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we make take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.
-- Barak Obama, speech to the UN 2009



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/obama-un-speech-text_n_296017.html

So giapeep, do you think the US and UK should scrap their nukes?

Short answer: Yes.

Good.

The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them.

We're stuck with them. Nation will get rid of anything but surplus as a show of goodwill. I can already hear you say, "But South Africa and the Ukraine gave up their weapons, Invictus! You're an ignoramus and want an arms race and nuclear exchange!" To them I say that South Africa gave them up after a total change of not just government but all of civil society after Apartheid ended and Ukraine and other Soviet Republics gave up theirs in large part because Russia is the legal successor to the USSR and it owned the nukes.

We're stuck with nukes forever. This push by Obama is just a good strategy to create an environment for tougher sanctions on Iran. This is a smart thing he's got going on, but it's to hurt Iran not remake Superman IV.

Nations will not get rid of anything but surplus as a show of goodwill.

@Invictus: Could you explain:

a) Why you hold the above view - ie that nuclear disarmament is impossible
b) Your own opinion towards whether we _should_ keep our nukes

Ok, Invictus, I was wondering what you meant. Short point is more clear.

It would be naive to think this will all happen at once, that like of SA, which lived through such horrors within it's boarders (and which Western societies have never experienced withing theirs) and former soviet republics who never had control of them in the first place. Nor is it so simple as the US trying to force more sanctions "to hurt" on just one country.

That being said, Obama's intention are to move toward nuclear disarmament -- as he negotiates with the portion of his population who are still stuck in the cold war mentality.

I think change takes time to happen in an instant.

actually, you're wrong Invictus.

Several UK politicians are seriously considering the investment required to maintain their trident system. Which is not that useful. In the past serveral treaties have been passed to limit strategic arms (SALT 1 and 2) and considering the cost, the US, UK and Russian federation are fairly likely to agree to some reduction. (if not giving up all of their weapons) but a reduction of 90% will be a good start in my opinion.

We also need to take serious action to remove Israel's nukes, and those of Pakistan and India. And North Korea if it does have any.

"a) Why you hold the above view - ie that nuclear disarmament is impossible"

Meaningful nuclear disarmament is impossible in the same way conventional disarmament is impossible. Neither side will give up an advantage or put itself willingly at a disadvantage. It's impossible because no side will ever trust the other to truly give up the weapons or not to build a new set in secret.

"b) Your own opinion towards whether we _should_ keep our nukes"

I think that's irrelevant. We should keep our nukes as long as other nations have nukes, and since there's not going anywhere unless fired in anger we ought to keep them as a deterrent. I don't think it's a desirable situation at all, but we simply have to live with it.

"Nor is it so simple as the US trying to force more sanctions "to hurt" on just one country."

I really think it is. Obama probably does have some idealistic reasons to get rid of nuclear weapons, but it it NOT a coincidence that this is being pushed at the same time as tougher sanctions on Iran. He's trying to create a world consensus against nuclear weapons themselves, not just their spread. That's far less hypocritical and gives the West a high moral ground relative to Iran. It's brilliant but it won't really lead to anything but superficial arms reductions.

"Several UK politicians are seriously considering the investment required to maintain their trident system. Which is not that useful."

The UK is under the US nuclear umbrella. The UK nuclear program was for Cold War independence, and if it's too expensive then it ought to be cut. Really, the UK program is redundant, since American missiles would be used to respond to any attack on NATO member Britain. If Britain abolishes its program then that is exactly the superficial change in the Balance of Terror I was talking about.

@jamie: ignoring your comments about israel, I don't see that removing nukes from pakistan or india is any more important than china, russia, or anyone else.

The Indians developed their's to counter the Chinese threat, similarily the Pakistani's developed their's to counter the india threat.

The stability of pakistan might be called into question but that has multiple dimensions relating to Afghanistan and Iran (on it's borders) and even India.

A multi-national treaty to disarm and agree to a mutual defensive pact between these super-powers would be a massive step in international diplomacy, and I think Obama would love to succeed in this sort of endeavour.

I don't agree with Invictus that no side will ever trust the other, because humans are capable of empathy; and i have some hope left in all my cynicism.

RE: whether the atomic bombs were necessary (or prudent) in ending the Pacific War:

Japan had been putting out feelers for surrender from as soon as November of 1944 which were simply ignored; Roosevelt and Truman would settle for nothing less than 'unconditional surrender' and were entirely unwilling even pretend to negotiate. Ironically, the only condition the Japanese were serious about - maintaining the Emperor and the Imperial system - was accepted after the 'unconditional' surrender. How many hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily for those two little letters, I wonder?

The atomic bombs were a consideration in the decision for unconditional surrender, the Japanese were familiar with the atomic bomb concept and figured - correctly - that the United States couldn't have very many more of them after the first two were dropped (I think there was one more ready to go in 1945, the rest wouldn't've been ready until 1946). The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was seen as a far more serious development. Hirohito was also upset that the defensive preparations in the Home Islands were entirely inadequate, and the Army had been lying to him about it.

Forcing the unconditional surrender of Japan was a huge strategic blunder; occupying and demilitarizing an industrialized, capitalist, and western-friendly country (remember, Japan had been allied with England until the 1930's - and several of the older battleships the US Navy sunk during the war had "Made in England" stamped on them) that had proven itself very militarily capable eliminated the only real challenge to communist domination in East Asia. I can't help but wonder how long Communism would've lasted if China hadn't gone "Red" - something that could've been prevented with either an earlier peace in China, or if Chiang Kai-Shek would've accepted Japanese help against the communists after the Japanese surrender (it may not've been too far-fetched - Chiang had to be kidnapped by his own generals to force him to sign a cease-fire with the Chinese Communists when the Japanese invaded - although if Japan had never invaded China in the first place, Chiang Kai-Shek probably would've obliterated the communists on his own in the late 30s/early 40s). It is difficult to imagine an aggressive communist block surrounded on one side by the combined might of the industrialized Western powers and on the other by China's (and to a lesser extent Japan's) bottomless manpower pool(s).

The only good thing to come out of the unconditional surrender of Japan was the War Crimes trials, but even then there were a lot of mistakes made, a lot of guilty people let free, and - like the Nuremberg Trials - it was largely "Victors' Justice" done by people with much higher body counts than the people they were trying. (one book I've read argued that many people who committed the worst atrocities were let go in exchange for telling the allies where they'd stashed all the gold and other valuables the Japanese had looted from east Asia during the war).

The use of the nukes at that time was also a show of foce to the USSR that the americans had a new weapon in their asrenal.

It's destructive power could not have been as easily demonstrated in peace-time.
and the effect of immediately gaining a unconditional cease-fire was to deprive the USSR of the chance to divide up japan as they had germany.

Though as pointed out both the Japanese and USSR knew about the atmoic bombs in theory, their use in practice must have had a much greater impact.