Author Topic: Our nuclear weapon paradoxes  (Read 224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 177,385
Our nuclear weapon paradoxes
« on: August 25, 2023, 10:52:40 am »
Our nuclear weapon paradoxes
by Mackubin Owens
 August 25, 2023 05:33 AM
 
 
Thanks to the international box-office success of Oppenheimer, the use and morality of nuclear weapons have become a popular discussion again. While we have lived in the nuclear era for the better part of a century, nuclear escalation and deterrence policy remains at the forefront of any military confrontation, including with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That campaign has played out against the backdrop of modern nuclear weapons technology and the fear that Russia might escalate to nuclear levels in order to break the stalemate in its favor. Yet the technological advancements in nuclear weapons, and indeed, non-nuclear weapons, since the time of Robert Oppenheimer might make it less likely either side will resort to a grand nuclear clash.
 
On Aug. 6, 1945, an American aircraft dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, a second bomb was detonated over Nagasaki. The two bombs killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians. The debate over the morality of these bombings began immediately and has only intensified over the decades as the destructive power of nuclear arms increased with the development of a thermonuclear weapon.

WHAT HARRY TRUMAN DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE NUCLEAR BOMB

Supporters of President Harry Truman’s decision to use the bomb cite the likely human costs of the alternatives: a blockade of Japan intended to starve the Japanese into submission, hardly a humanitarian course of action, or an invasion, which would have killed many more Americans but also Japanese as well. And any discussion of the morality of nuclear deterrence since the end of World War II has to take account of the fact that, although the Atomic Age did not lead to the end of war, fear of the destructive power of nuclear weapons placed an upper limit on conflict. One has only to compare the human cost of war since 1945 to the years between 1914 and 1945.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nuclear-weapon-paradoxes-russia-united-states
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.  George Washington - Farewell Address

Offline DefiantMassRINO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Our nuclear weapon paradoxes
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2023, 11:31:18 am »
Big lesson from Afghanistan and 2nd Iraw War ... Nations are more reluctant to invade or support regime change in nations with a working nuclear weapon.

Ukraine gave up its nukes; got invaded by Russia.
Muammar Gaddafi gave up Libya's nuclear program; regime change with NATO support.
Syria, no regime change once Assad had the backing of a nuclear power, Russia.
"Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it’s entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - Alan Simpson, Frontline Video Interview