13 ms·

How is using a nuke to kill people different from any other bomb (Apart from the obvious immediate scale)? The most lethal air raids were a result of more conve

How is using a nuke to kill people different from any other bomb (Apart from the obvious immediate scale)? The most lethal air raids were a result of more conventional warheads : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan And yes, this weapon put an end to the massive spilling of blood during WW2 in Japan. In case you didn't read the story before writing this comment here's the quote that reinforces what the reality for the soldiers there would have been: > "In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed." They very much intended to make it a long, slow, bloody combat until this episode.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> How is using a nuke to kill people different from any other bomb Aside from that thing called radiation, the problem here is that the U.S. feels entitled to tell other nations who can/can't have nuclear arms, yet it is the only one to have used it in a war.
- qball 8y ago
  >Aside from that thing called radiation Have you heard of "unexploded ordnance"? It's fallout that all conventional weapons become when they fail to explode, and unlike fallout it never actually goes away until someone digs it up. They come in many sizes; it either blows up you and the entire city block (if it's a larger bomb), or maybe just you and the guy standing next to you (if it's a cluster bomb unit or a mortar shell), or maybe it just takes your legs off (if it's a mine or a hand grenade). Europeans (Germans and French in particular), Africans, and people in certain Southeast Asian countries are very familiar with this concept; there has fortunately been no armed conflict on North American soil at a technology level that generates such fallout. The people of France will have to live for at least the next thousand years with the Zone Rouge (for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge), while not only have Hiroshima and Nagasaki been completely rebuilt but Ground Zero is perfectly habitable to the point of being an active tourist attraction. As far as nuclear arms control goes, the most intellectually honest lens with which to view it is through standard gun control with the nation-state as the individual actor; if that view is that the gun should be restricted to higher authorities only (and that it is hazardous to have too many in the hands of the common citizen/state), then the fact that the US feels entitled to tell others who should and shouldn't have a gun is entirely consistent with that. Perhaps that authority can't be held to account (because they have a gun and all you have is a promise that it won't be abused), but that's the trade-off. Perhaps the issue is that nuclear weapons aren't sufficiently easy to acquire; nations that are actually opposed to the American sphere of influence would then be better able to resist both overt and covert bullying by said Americans. (Whether or not that bullying results in a net positive for humanity is left as an exercise for the reader.)
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    > “According to the Sécurité Civile agency in charge, at the current rate no fewer than 700 more years will be needed to clean [Zone Rouge] completely.“ Holy crap!
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Europeans (Germans and French in particular), Africans, and people in certain Southeast Asian countries are very familiar with this concept European here, thanks for presuming otherwise. Chernobyl affected not only people directly near the blast, but in Norway! Yes, unexplored WWII bombs are a huge problem, which is however not a counter to nuclear fallout being disastrous, not just for people directly sitting on the bombs, but for birth defects etc. Chemical weapons are considered worse for this very reason, even if they cause less direct causalities than conventional ones. My biggest problem with the U.S. using nuclear weapons is, as I said, it then going around and telling other nations that they can't have them, as they may(!) use them.
- bleh123 8y ago
  You must surely agree that ancient poisons/blades/firebombs/hot oil and other means used to win wars cause terrible effects that persist for decades if the target manages to live and ensure a very painful death otherwise? The objective of warfare is to massively overwhelm your adversary.America just did a better job at that in this particular case. You may also want to read about Russias losses during the wars and the methods adopted to inflict those damages. War is not logical. There is no point in trying to enforce civility to a concept that's by definition, incapable of the application.
sacado2 8y ago
The problem with the nuclear bomb is it's a weapon to kill civilians, not to destroy strategic military targets. Plus, it's a horrible way to die. Dying because you have a building fall on you, or because a bullet goes through your body, is a thing. Dying because your skin is melting but you can't see it because you got blind after that violent explosion you didn't even watch, and don't even understand what happens because the attack was 10km away, is another.
- bhaak 8y ago
  > The problem with the nuclear bomb is it's a weapon to kill civilians, not to destroy strategic military targets. That's late stage WW2, that was not specific to the nuclear bomb. As WW2 turned both trying to destroy the industry of the enemy and demoralize the general population, carpet bombing was seen as an effective method to do so. Even though it did achieve the former, it didn't achieve the latter. So it's arguable if it even shortened the war in Europe. > Plus, it's a horrible way to die. [...] You should read some accounts of the bombing of e.g. Tokyo or Hamburg. Dying to incendiary bombs is not a nicer way to die.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> How is using a nuke to kill people different from any other bomb Aside from that thing called radiation, the problem here is that the U.S. feels entitled to tell other nations who can/can't have nuclear arms, yet it is the only one to have used it in a war.

qball 8y ago
>Aside from that thing called radiation Have you heard of "unexploded ordnance"? It's fallout that all conventional weapons become when they fail to explode, and unlike fallout it never actually goes away until someone digs it up. They come in many sizes; it either blows up you and the entire city block (if it's a larger bomb), or maybe just you and the guy standing next to you (if it's a cluster bomb unit or a mortar shell), or maybe it just takes your legs off (if it's a mine or a hand grenade). Europeans (Germans and French in particular), Africans, and people in certain Southeast Asian countries are very familiar with this concept; there has fortunately been no armed conflict on North American soil at a technology level that generates such fallout. The people of France will have to live for at least the next thousand years with the Zone Rouge (for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge), while not only have Hiroshima and Nagasaki been completely rebuilt but Ground Zero is perfectly habitable to the point of being an active tourist attraction. As far as nuclear arms control goes, the most intellectually honest lens with which to view it is through standard gun control with the nation-state as the individual actor; if that view is that the gun should be restricted to higher authorities only (and that it is hazardous to have too many in the hands of the common citizen/state), then the fact that the US feels entitled to tell others who should and shouldn't have a gun is entirely consistent with that. Perhaps that authority can't be held to account (because they have a gun and all you have is a promise that it won't be abused), but that's the trade-off. Perhaps the issue is that nuclear weapons aren't sufficiently easy to acquire; nations that are actually opposed to the American sphere of influence would then be better able to resist both overt and covert bullying by said Americans. (Whether or not that bullying results in a net positive for humanity is left as an exercise for the reader.)
- pmarreck 8y ago
  > “According to the Sécurité Civile agency in charge, at the current rate no fewer than 700 more years will be needed to clean [Zone Rouge] completely.“ Holy crap!
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Europeans (Germans and French in particular), Africans, and people in certain Southeast Asian countries are very familiar with this concept European here, thanks for presuming otherwise. Chernobyl affected not only people directly near the blast, but in Norway! Yes, unexplored WWII bombs are a huge problem, which is however not a counter to nuclear fallout being disastrous, not just for people directly sitting on the bombs, but for birth defects etc. Chemical weapons are considered worse for this very reason, even if they cause less direct causalities than conventional ones. My biggest problem with the U.S. using nuclear weapons is, as I said, it then going around and telling other nations that they can't have them, as they may(!) use them.
bleh123 8y ago
You must surely agree that ancient poisons/blades/firebombs/hot oil and other means used to win wars cause terrible effects that persist for decades if the target manages to live and ensure a very painful death otherwise? The objective of warfare is to massively overwhelm your adversary.America just did a better job at that in this particular case. You may also want to read about Russias losses during the wars and the methods adopted to inflict those damages. War is not logical. There is no point in trying to enforce civility to a concept that's by definition, incapable of the application.

sacado2 8y ago

The problem with the nuclear bomb is it's a weapon to kill civilians, not to destroy strategic military targets. Plus, it's a horrible way to die. Dying because you have a building fall on you, or because a bullet goes through your body, is a thing. Dying because your skin is melting but you can't see it because you got blind after that violent explosion you didn't even watch, and don't even understand what happens because the attack was 10km away, is another.

bhaak 8y ago
> The problem with the nuclear bomb is it's a weapon to kill civilians, not to destroy strategic military targets. That's late stage WW2, that was not specific to the nuclear bomb. As WW2 turned both trying to destroy the industry of the enemy and demoralize the general population, carpet bombing was seen as an effective method to do so. Even though it did achieve the former, it didn't achieve the latter. So it's arguable if it even shortened the war in Europe. > Plus, it's a horrible way to die. [...] You should read some accounts of the bombing of e.g. Tokyo or Hamburg. Dying to incendiary bombs is not a nicer way to die.