After the U.S. A-bombed North Korea in 1950...

Originally posted by no1marauder
The proposals by US military leaders in the Korean War generally called for the use of A-bombs against clearly military targets: troop concentrations, airfields, etc. etc. Would it be "never justified to use nuclear weapons" against such targets?

Can you guarantee that fall-out and explosions won't kill civilians?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
agreed,
man shavixmir, don't take this personal.
When i see that ugly mug, the song comes to mind.... Red Dress

Yes I'm drunk but dam your ugly, I'll tell ya something this I know, tomorrow morning I'll be sober, you'll be just as ugly still.

Corporal Klinger got plenty of nookie in Korea and he had hairy knuckles.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Ask the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki about their strategic concentration of targets justified their deaths?

You know, even Iran has strategic concentration of targets in Israel. Have they the right to use theirs? If not, why have any others the right to use theirs?

Your answer is hysterical and ignores the scenario I gave you. Do you consider troop concentrations to be civilian targets?

Countries don't have "rights"; only individuals do. If you want to make an argument that countries shouldn't be allowed to use nuclear weapons at all, do so. Just don't toss in the civilian red herring.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Can you guarantee that fall-out and explosions won't kill civilians?

No. Nor can I guarantee that any weapon used in a war won't kill a civilian. Does that mean that war is never justified?

Originally posted by FMF
The U.S. may have come quite close to using A-Bombs to end the Korean War.

Would it have been justified?

Would it have ended the war?

What would have been the impact on geopolitics in the 1950s, 1960s and beyond?

Speculate.

I suspect that someone else would be tempted to nuke us just to keep us under control. A nuke-happy USA is a terrifying thing, especially at that time when nukes were new and nobody else had them (or very few).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your answer is hysterical and ignores the scenario I gave you. Do you consider troop concentrations to be civilian targets?

Countries don't have "rights"; only individuals do. If you want to make an argument that countries shouldn't be allowed to use nuclear weapons at all, do so. Just don't toss in the civilian red herring.

So you think that states can hysterically use nukes of any reasons to kill any number of civilians in any chosen country? I don't think so.

If you think so, then Iran can have their nukes, Israel can keep theirs, and every country of any regim can develope, or buy nukes to use them, at will!

You know very well that 200.000+ (how many?) civilians were killed in Japan during WW2 by nukes. That the second bomb wasn't even neccessary to fulfill US strategy. They used them of sheer terror. That was a crime against humanity! The court in Haag didn't exist then, it does now.

I want a nuke free world!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you think that states can hysterically use nukes of any reasons to kill any number of civilians in any chosen country? I don't think so.

If you think so, then Iran can have their nukes, Israel can keep theirs, and every country of any regim can develope, or buy nukes to use them, at will!

You know very well that 200.000+ (how many?) civilians wer ...[text shortened]... inst humanity! The court in Haag didn't exist then, it does now.

I want a nuke free world!

The second bomb was needed to prevent the Japanese from taking the time to calmly, logically analyze the situation and trying to manipulate it as best they could to their advantage. The second bomb indicated that if the Japanese didn't stop NOW, there would no longer be any Japanese people. It kept them in a state of panic, forcing the immediate surrender.

I wonder how Koreans feel about the nuking? They have a powerful cultural hatred of Japan even today and hearing about the nukes must have made them ecstatic.

However, it seems 1/4 of the killed in the Hiroshima bombing were Koreans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-World_War_II_1995_p.516-38
The Oxford Companion to World War II (1995) p. 516.

i remember a south vietnamese guy who wished the US had dropped nukes on the north vietnamese before they overran the south. or even after.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The second bomb was needed to prevent the Japanese from taking the time to calmly, logically analyze the situation and trying to manipulate it as best they could to their advantage. The second bomb indicated that if the Japanese didn't stop NOW, there would no longer be any Japanese people. It kept them in a state of panic, forcing the immediate sur ...[text shortened]... n_War#cite_note-World_War_II_1995_p.516-38
The Oxford Companion to World War II (1995) p. 516.

The technical term is "getting inside the enemy's OODA loop" I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

While I think it was horrifying to drop those a-bombs on Japan I don't think the Japanese had any intent on surrender up until that point. The argument is that it actually saved a million or so lives on both sides. Maybe there could have been some other way like to invite the Japanese to see a demonstration of an a-bomb explosion. I think the civilian getting killed and burned and sick is what is most horrifying about it.



Manny

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The second bomb was needed to prevent the Japanese from taking the time to calmly, logically analyze the situation and trying to manipulate it as best they could to their advantage. The second bomb indicated that if the Japanese didn't stop NOW, there would no longer be any Japanese people. It kept them in a state of panic, forcing the immediate sur ...[text shortened]... n_War#cite_note-World_War_II_1995_p.516-38
The Oxford Companion to World War II (1995) p. 516.

You think it was neccessary to kill another multi thousands of innocent japanese people in order to accomplish that?

Oh, I hear the voice of bin Ladin there: "It's necessary to fly another plane into the other tower to avoid Washington to have time to think!"

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You think it was neccessary to kill another multi thousands of innocent japanese people in order to accomplish that?

Oh, I hear the voice of bin Ladin there: "It's necessary to fly another plane into the other tower to avoid Washington to have time to think!"

I don't know, but there was an important reason two bombs were dropped. It wasn't just terrorism and torture.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't know, but there was an important reason two bombs were dropped. It wasn't just terrorism and torture.

Mass-killings. Of innocent civilians. Whos only crime was that they were born in Japan.

It's like letting a bomb over Israel to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Mass-killings. Of innocent civilians. Whos only crime was that they were born in Japan.

It's like letting a bomb over Israel to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I am not interested in defending the usage of nuclear bombs on civilians as a strategy. All I want to say is that once that decision was made, using two bombs instead of one was a very important part of the strategy.

I will point out however that this was long ago, before many treaties were signed, before it was proven that targetting civilians doesn't work and precision strikes are needed (a United States Air Force concept by the way). The law was different, and there was less military science in the books.

it sure worked in Japan and Germany!