Suffering the weapons of mass destruction

[KillerMuffin]

And then the bombs kill indiscriminately - innocent women and children. Both civilians and combatants die. Residences, schools and hospitals are all destroyed in the blaze. The harm is huge (far more than a military attack on warships in a harbour). The harm lasts - it is way disproportional. The bombs also fall on the second pillar of the self-defence test.

That means that the US and France's claim to keeping them for self-defence purposes is unwarranted because their use in self-defence will be illegal and excessive.

It's interesting that you say that. It's becoming the general consensus amongst the military people that I hang out with and some of the 'classes' I was required to attend while serving in the Navy that there are no more front lines. There is no more civilian population. This began with, essentially, General Sherman and his destructive drive through the South during the War Between the States. It has been done before, and quite regularly, but not on such grand scale in terms of modern day warfare. World War I's civilian population didn't feel it quite as much, as missiles weren't in use, and neither was Sherman's tactic employed. They did, however, have tanks which do tear things up, but mostly out in the fields.

World War II is where missiles, bombs, and torpedoes brought the war to the civilian population. Untold irreplaceable pieces of history were lost in WW2, along with all the lives of the innocents. Now with the advent of nuclear warheads and biological agents, it's become possible for smaller countries with small armies, perhaps even small terrorist groups, to become major players in the international warmaking scene, as it were.

Nuclear weapons are not going to get banned. Even if they were, you would see the same problems that the United States is having with illegal drugs, I would imagine. They do, however, need to be controlled, and rigorously. If we could agree to and follow the Geneva conventions, then why not something with the big weapons?

 

[Ezzy]

The Primary use of the Atom bombs...

Long Assed Post

There are three real reasons for the use of the atomic bombs on Japan.

The Primary reason is the huge cost in human life, both Japanese and American who would have died, if the expected invasion of Japan had taken place.
Every member of the Japanese population would have fought, killed and died, in their attempt to keep the Americans off the shores of the 4 main islands that constitute Mainland Japan.
Ok you may have had a few cowards, hiding to save their own skins, but you must remember that the mindset of the Japanese; was and is different to that of the west.
It is considered to be the most honourable way to die, in the service of the emperor and defending the homeland.
The mindset also makes them welcome this kind of death, and if you think that the American people would have stood still, for the deaths that it would have entailed to take them, even with the superior air weapons available to the Americans (those like high explosive bombs that are quite humane).

I did read some details of the expected losses of American service personnel, and the estimates of Japanese Military and civilian population who would have died, the totals were in the millions.

The secondary and tertiary reasons could actually be read as one.

The American military wanted to see the destructive power of the two types of weapons. The second bombing occurred while the Japanese where debating ending the war.

The Potsdam ultimatum by President Truman, had been broadcast to Japan and rejected by their Premier, the rejection was basically what forced the dropping of the first bomb.

IMHO the second should have been held off, and either not used at all, or have been dropped a week after it was.


EZ

 

[KillerMuffin]

I read an interview with the mayor of Hiroshima who said that a few hours after the disaster some of the people went down to the nearby river to get some water - their skin was literally falling off them in sheets. Of course both city hospitals were destroyed by the bomb and so there was no treatment for these people - they died a slow and very painful death. More that a third of the city die that day, and almost another third within a week or two thereafter.

Well done Enola Gay. Well done Little Boy. Well done to the unindicted war masters who play their games with peoples lives. A great case for a war crimes tribunal.

War crimes is an oxymoron. Reparations caused world war 2. Yes, the Allies caused World War 2, or so some argue. Would the German people have been as receptive to Hitler and his Nazi ideals if it weren't for the fact that they were paying so much for a loaf of bread? A wheelbarrow full of Duetschmarks for a loaf of bread because the Allies felt the need to be reimbursed. Once again, the people pay out the nose for what their governments do. I think this is a great case for a war crimes tribunal as well. Shouldn't the people who ultimately began the war be punished for it?

But, before we talk about war crimes against the Japanese, lets discuss the lives that the Japanese government forcefully and with malice aforethought, took from Americans simply because the Emporer thought he should rule the world, he is God after all. Let us discuss the Bataan Death March and Guadacanal. These two simple things still echo through the people who experienced them, the ones who lived. But, since the marchers were all combatants, I suppose it makes the atrocious, long, tortured, drawn out deaths at human hands, person to person, that they suffered all right.

Do the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even understand why they had the bombs dropped on them? Do they even understand why they might get yelled at when they show up at the USS Arizona war memorial on veterans day? No. According to Japanese Revised History (my Japanese friend who married a fellow sailor told me this) Pearl Harbor never happened and the Japanese weren't really involved in the war. Most of the Japanese people had never heard of Pearl Harbor and wouldn't have cared if they had.

Let the Japanese government take the responsibility for what they ultimately began and crucify Truman post mortem for agreeing to drop the bombs. He is already listed in history as the man who set the precedent of atmoic warfare, now that's about as nasty a stigma as Eichmann's reign of terror is, at least to me.

Personally, I think that there should be a little battlefield somewhere in the world and if the leaders of the countries want to war, then they personally should do it on that little battlefield. Let the morons shoot themselves and leave the rest of the world out of it.

I have a question about war crimes and a war crime tribunal. Who gave whom the right to stand in judgement of the acts of persons in another nation? Who has the right to stand in ultimate judgement and decide what is a crime and what is not over everyone in the globe? Who has the right to decide what is a crime in the acts of war and what is not? Why is a war crime tribunal justice? Why is it only the losers are tried for their war crimes? Why does the entire phrase "war crime" seem so oxymoronic to me? Isn't the entire act of war a crime? And if so, shouldn't everyone on all sides of a war be tried from criminal atrocities? Why are we bothering to assign blame and responsibility and doing all this finger pointing after the fact? Shouldn't we concentrate on the whys and to seeing that it doesn't happen in the future?

 

[Expertise]

In short KM the winners write the history books and staff the tribunals and courts.

 

[Slut_boy]

To Xander,

I take the point that you make that neither one is worse than the other. Your thoughts on biological warefar are interesting - in a way the same principles in the self-defence argument that I had against nuclear weapons could be used. Thanks for the input. It also seems to make sense that chemical and biological attacks could be every bit as effective in the long term. At the moment there is a trial on the go in SA in which a former Apartheid scientist is being tried for crimes against humanity for chemical and biological tactics. He did, for example, try to poison black communities with diseases like dissentry, bilhazia, and other viruses. His name is Wouter Basson.

To KillerMuffin,

Yes, I agree with your sentiment. Part of the problem with Nuremburg was that the Germans on trial found the tribunal to be lacking in credibility - because, as Herr Rolf (counsel for judges on trial said) "it can never be just when the victor tries the vanquished". Adolf Eichman found the same thing when sentenced to death in a municipal court in Jerusalem. But I think that the proposed ICC which will have its seat at the Hague will be much fairer since it will have 15 judges from 15 different countries (neutral). That is part of an attempt to take the bias off things.

 

[Xander]

Thank you SB.

Yes I have heard about that trial in SA.
I'm one of those weirdos, that have done some reseach on chemical, but especially on biological warfare.
And it is quite disturbing what they come up with now a days.
On a long term chemical and biological warfare IS every bit as dangerous as nuclear warfare. If not more.
Just look at the effects from poisonous mustard gasses, used duren WW1 & WW2. It only now, that the effects has begun to decrease. generations after it was used.

As far as I know the reason that no one, as of yet, has tried to use stronger biological and chemical weapons, than the once already tried. Is the fear that it will spread to and extend, where it will threaten the "right" people.

It is quite horrible what some of these substances can do. Me, I would personally rather burn to a crisp in seconds, than suffer the consequenses of bio warfare for days.

Killermuffin has a point though. I don't think that either will be banned. At least not in my life span.
Horrible weapons as Nuclear-, chemical and bio-weapons will unfortunately always hang over our heads.
I fully agree with her. If they wont be banned, they should be controlled to the extreme.

 

[Softly]

Think ahead

Sometime one of the nutcase groups will deceide to give us a nuke present. Sparky was right. New York or DC. I think DC.

Well, I don't like DC anyway. Stupid place to put a capital, drugs and all.

So the question is; where would we put the new capital?
My vote is for Kansas City.

Oh, as far as us owning nukes. I think our motto should be, "Nuke em now." Just to give the bad guys something to think about.

 

[Expertise]

There was a song....

"She was quite a lady, Enola Gay,
and though she's gone, she's here to stay.
I here the thunder, and I wonder, is it
the dawning of a new clear day"

Okay SB the technical issues. Nukes have three principle means of killing humans (targets etc.). Burn, blast, radiation. Burn is the initial the heart of a nuclear blast is far hotter than the sun and will basicly incinerate (dependant on weapon yeild, burst type etc.) anything within the fireball and for an extended area around it. The blast is the next in this unholy trinity of effects. Caused by the severe over pressure resulting from the weapons detonation it reaches out in a wave (like the first ring from a stone dropped in a pond) out to 25 miles or more. It may not deystroy everything to that distance but your average wood frame house et cetera is going to be flattened. The blast is survivable but highly destructive. Third, radiation. No "immediate" deaths but there will be some in the first twenty four hours with more to follow, potentialy for years.

SB I think that your criteria for self-defence is more suited to one individuals assault on another but what the heck i'll bite.


"The force must be directed only at the attacker"

Well SB the principal target of most nuclear weapons has been other nuclear weapons. At least since the accuracy of their delivery systems has improved to the point where they are aimable to within meters of their intended target. The next point I would make is that there is no way to seperate a person from their "state" which ultimately in most cases is the attacker. The citizens even if they are "non-combatants" (although there in reality is no such thing anymore except in very "limited" war and we're not talking about that here) are responsible for the actions of their state. Thus they become the "attacker" and liable to suffer retaliation. I am not endorsing the indiscrimenent killing of enemy civilians by say gunfire, which is avoidable (If you knew my background you would know exactly how much that is not what i'm saying). But civilian casulties, while they should be avoided to whatever extent is possible are a fact of war and will be for the forseeable future. And, although nuclear weapons are hugely destructive at one feel swoop. They are no more destructive than a protracted bombing campaign directed at non-combatants or the infrastructure of their nation.

The amount of force cannot be disproportionite. Here is where we are more on the same page SB. I am in no way suggesting that if attacked that the "victim" respond with anymore force necessary than that which enables them to eliminate the threat to their safety. However, if that means that nukeing another country ensures that they will not employ more weapons of mass destruction (nuclear/biological/chemical) against me or my country so be it. You are trying to legislate against the possibility of reprisal for a horrendous act, and in doing so you are suggesting litigation against the human innstinct for survival.

Basicly SB the reality is that the genie is out of the bottle and he's not going back in. Although I could never endorse first use of one of these systems there are plenty who could and would. So the best way to ensure safety is the threat of an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

 

[Slut_boy]

Expertise,

Thanks for the technical note, and also for the rest. Yeah, I know what you mean. Okay so you didn't buy into the "necessity" element of 'self-defence'. What then about this further line of reasoning on the same point.....

The extent of the harm is so great in terms of territory that even the neighbours of the 'aggressor state' if bombed will suffer some harm. Imagine, for example, a small European state like France getting nuked - the harm will also be felt in Holland, and in Belgium, and in Germany and the UK, etc. Surely that must exceed the limits of 'self-defence' since the first attack came from France only and not the others. You can only use force against the attacker, not all surrounding states as well.

Do you think that there is merit in that argument?

 

[Xander]

True SB, and that's where chemical and biological weapons come in again.

If France were nuked, there would be a radiation effect on the rest of the neighbouring countries. Not a big one. But still.
Now, you can't dam up radiation, except if you build a lead dome over the entire country.
However, you can control thr flow of sick humans, under the influence of a bio weapon or a chem weapon. pretty much making France a wasteland.

But when that is said. If, say Paris was bombed, it should be one hell of a large fucker to influence neighbouring countries.

 

[KillerMuffin]

This also bring into the question of who would go so far as to bomb Paris with a nuclear payload? The countries that possess nukes would rather not do so, from what I gather, unless attacked first. However, as nuclear proliferation spreads, what is to stop some radical nation with a vendetta against the evil west from dropping one in Paris and wiping out western europe? Nothing really? If an agreement were reached to stop producing nuclear weapons, do you think it would be unilaterally ratified by all nations and representative groups? Doubt it. The proof of that is in the Geneva conventions. There are plenty of nations out there that refused to sign the Geneva Conventions, and they are merely there to prevent the utter debasement of human life.

I would have to agree with the others that biological weapons are far more deadly. It would be a simple matter to wipe out California and the entire eastern seaboard with a few well placed biological weapons. It would much cheaper and have far more lasting implications that dropping a nuke, which the only advantage would be the statement a mushroom cloud makes.

You may take, for example, the dumping of saryn gas into a crowded Tokyo subway by a tiny group of Japanese fanatics. How these people got ahold of saryn, I'll never know. And, quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me. Biological weapons are much easier, cheaper, and just as nasty, effect wise, as nuclear weapons.

 

[Expertise]

To some extent yes. But in effect a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and death is death, by rads or bullets or famine.

I hesitate to use the term unfortunate here but.... If France nuked Toronto and was about to zap Montreal as well, I would hope that the command authority would worry more about our citizens than the citizens of France or the probable ill effects on the health of Belgians or the Dutch.

War, although it is becoming better in that regard, is an inherrantly dirty and non surgical business unfortunately. If non-combatant nations have to suffer to ensure my nations survival that is the price that will have to paid in my view. I realize that on the surface that sounds pretty jingoistic but it is true.

Would you consider it a war crime to bomb French petroleum refineries with convential weapons? It would create extremely toxic clouds all over western Europe. It would negatively effect the health of those "downwind", it would cripple their transport system potentialy leading to famine not just in France but in her neighbors. Yet because it was a conventional weapon its OK?

Though I find them abhorrent weapons of mass destruction are just that, weapons. Weapons do some terrible things but one of the great things they do is protect.

I find your ambition laudible SB but I can't imagine, and more is the pity, a way that is workable without tremendous danger for too many.

 

[Weird Harold]

Where are you Harold and Bill - I have always valued your input immensely.

I'm still on a hunting trip, and using a friend's computer.

I think a quote from "B-52: Giant in the sky" on the Discovery Wings channel the other night pretty much sums up my feelings about weapons of mass destruction:

"What we do is make people quit."

That is what the B-522 has done for 50 years now, and what the massive overkill potential of MAD has done for a bit over 50 years. Whether it is the application of several tons of conventional explosives, or a single nuke, the threat has kept people from starting or continuing wars of aggression.

If the world were populated only by wolves or gerbils, or some other rational animal, it might be possible to survive without the threat of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the world is populated by humans, who are NOT rational.

The threat of nuclear retaliation has kept the most recent wars on a "conventional weapons" basis. Perhaps it would be better to end all war, and the threat of war, but humans being what they are, that's not a realistic possiblilty.

On the subject of how terrible nuclear weapons are: more people were killed in Tokyo and Dresden by "conventional" incendiary bombing that than have been affected by by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs since they released from the bombers 55 years ago. Those two cities are only two of hundreds of cities that were destroyed by firestorms caused by conventional weapons.

The USA and France are simply adhering to the advice of Theodore Rosevelt to "speak softly and carry a big stick." If the stick is big enough, then it never needs to be used.

I don't necessarily agree that the "stick" needs to be quite as big as that wielded by the USA or France, but that is the stick they have, and they are't willing to spend the money to build a conventional equivalent.

The only realistic aternative I see is for some nation to take on the task of world peacekeeper, and enforce peace by conquest and military occupation of every troublespot on the globe. That's not terribly realistic because every single little trouble spot is going to fight back, and the other nations are going to feels threatened because the "peacekeeper" nation doesn't conform to their parochial standards of "what is right," and gang up against the "aggressor" like they did in 1991.

 

[Myrrdin]

Ultimate deterrent = the bogeyman
How can the nuclear threat be eliminated, without closing all the nuclear power stations as well. How are you going to differentiate between nuclear facilities for power production, reprocessing etc, from those that could be holding uranium for military purposes.
Nuclear power has given us an alternative to fossil fuels, we're not so dependant on the Arab states. The conservationists don't want any more open cast coal mines, windfarms etc.
But the only way to properly police a nuclear weapon ban, would be to close all those civillian facilities as well. Otherwise it's just another bad law that can't be enforced.
In a perfect world we should be able to solve all disputes by diplomacy. But the world aint perfect. So it's nice to know we have something in the back cupboard (or sub in the Gulf) It,s easier to negotiate peace from a position of strength.
Like many inventions they can be used for good or evil. Often while looking for one use another is found. Warmongers will always be ready to adapt something for their own ends. If one avenue is closed, they,ll just find another.
Would the world be any safer for the banning of nuclear/ biological weapons ? Or would military leaders just decide. that since their opponents have nothing left that would penetrate his underground bunker. Its personally safe for him to send his country to war. Send the troops out into the trenches. And fight hand to hand over bits of no mans land.
Would there be more wars or less?