Why is the only country to have ever nuked another country

[malaise]

so obsessed with anyone else having nukes?
Truth be told, rational folks everywhere have more to fear from the USA than from anyone else.

Destroy all nukes.

[spanone]

1. No Nukes!

[MineralMan]

2. That's a very inconvenient question.

It needs to be raised frequently, I think.

[treestar]

3. Especially since the way it works is Mutually Assured Destruction

No nuclear power can attack another.

[malaise]

4. Don the Con literally want s to be the

one Don - the quintessential bully who can kill anyone who disagrees with him.

LOCK HIM UP!

[treestar]

6. I think that is what he thought being POTUS would

do for him. That he could make anyone in the world do what he wanted.

[malaise]

8. Including the other two branches of government

Even the Constitution is beneath him

LOCK HIM UP...or else

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

34. Mutually Assured Destruction assumes that everyone with a nuke is a rational actor.

That they understand that if one country fires a nuke so will other countries, resulting in everyone being destroyed.

It's the assumption of a rational actor that is the problem here, as Trump isn't rational. Don't know if he plays computer games at all, but one of the pleasures of them is that in the game you can do all sorts of terrible things and it doesn't have real life consequences. For Trump, it's all a game, always without consequences.

[treestar]

36. I hope Kelly gets him a game

So he can ley Donald play it instead of the real thing

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

39. Not sure that would be a good idea.

What he'd probably take from it is that he won't be harmed, and since other people clearly aren't real to him, he'd still think it's ok to nuke North Korea, or wherever he wants.

[Grammy23]

5. Malaise, I have been asking this question for years.

It takes some kind of nerve (gall) to be so high and mighty about who gets to have nukes and who does not. The irony is sometimes more than I can stand. Why is it that most Americans seem to think that not only is it logical for us to be the deciders about that, but that it is, somehow, RIGHT?

The rest of the world probably thinks we are a little full of ourselves for thinking we get to stop other countries from obtaining or building a nuclear weapon. The only country that anihilated two towns (and its citizens) in Japan because it was deemed the quickest way to save lives? Give me a break. If we didn’t do that MORE people would have died. Guess we’ll never know the answer to that, will we? No one ever addresses the fact that it was Japanese civilians who died or were maimed in those bombings. We’d still be howling about the carnage and injustice if it was San Francisco and Chicago that had been incinerated by the Japanese.

[malaise]

7. Well we grew up under British colonialism/imperialism so we understand it in ways

Americans don't.

The violation of the notion of sovereignty is way past criminal but if only you have the weapons (and hence the power), you decide who and what is criminal.

Nice post

[7962]

25. For several years we were the ONLY country with them; yet didn't use them again.

If the US was SUCH a bad country, we could have blackmailed the world into submission. Instead, we were kind enough to allow Russia to envelope the Eastern Bloc, kind enough to let the communists take over China & others, and so on.

The fact is that the US was the best country to become the first to have nukes.
What do you think the result would have been if the Russians were first? The Germans?

Tired of the "US is the bad guy" nonsense. No we're not perfect. Not by a long shot. But the world is a whole lot. better with us in existence.

[greeny2323]

9. Context

This post ignores historical context and also, not every country is equivalent. I suppose ISIS having nuclear weapons is exactly the same as the USA having them?

How do we get rid of all nuclear weapons? How do we know if a country hasn't stored some somewhere? You have to answer hard questions before proposing they should all go away.

And the country the USA dropped the bombs on attacked us with an act of war. They weren't trying to spread democracy.

[Not Ruth]

11. That is no excuse to use nukes

[Not Ruth]

10. US military loves to kill people of color

[cstanleytech]

13. The use of nukes on japan had nothing to do with their skin color rather it had to do with

getting the war to end sooner rather than draw out the conflict even longer with even more deaths being caused by a protracted invasion of Japan.
That aside yes the weapons are terrible and I wish they were not possible to make but there is nothing we can do to really change the law of physics that would prevent them from being possible.

[Not Ruth]

14. We never would have used nukes against white people

[cstanleytech]

17. Hopefully we never find out if thats true. nt

[Marengo]

19. According to General Groves, FDR considered the possibility being alarmed by the German...

Ardennes offensive.

[7962]

23. You conveniently forget the Cuban missile crisis & White Russians who almost fried

They were definitely going to be nuked if that escalated. And it was a LOT closer to happening than we knew at the time.

[brush]

54. BINGO! Just as we never call white terrorists. Subconscious white supremacy.

[localroger]

38. No, it was all about the Russians

We had broken Japan's codes and knew they were seeking a way to end the war, and we knew the terms they wanted -- almost exactly what we ended up giving them. But after Trinity the Potsdam declaration was crafted to goad them on so we could show the Russians what would happen if they defied us. The bomb actually extended the war several weeks as well as needlessly murdering two cities.

[cstanleytech]

56. From what I read they were at an impasse over that because they were trying to save face

in front of their people and were afraid of just surrendering until after the bombs were dropped which gave them an entirely plausible reason to do it.

[localroger]

59. The Japanese were trying to sue for peace through Russia

We intercepted a communication with to their ambassador instructing him as to what terms would be acceptable. The Potsdam Declaration was delayed until after Trinity and when it was released it included the exact language we knew they would never accept, which in the end we did not require. It was ALL a game between the US and Russia, the writing being on the wall at that point. The story is in The Making of the Atomic Bomb, as well as a lot of other sources, but Rhodes is probably the best documented.

[Richard D]

12. Once a country has nukes . . .

They are no longer as easy to terrify.

[Bradical79]

15. Why wouldn't they be?

If you develop the most destructive technology ever seen, you would prefer to keep it away from people who don't like you very much. No one knows better than the U.S. and Japan just what these things can do.

While complete nuclear disarmament will never happen, we do need to work with other countries to prevent more nuclear armed states and simultaneously drastically cut our stockpiles (how many planets do we need to be able to render lifeless?).

[Chalco]

16. Every country should have them, or No country should have them. IMHO nt

[cstanleytech]

18. Ya but the problem is a lack of trust, our government does not trust

the nations that currently have them to get rid of them and never make any more and those nations do not trust us for the same reason.

[Chalco]

26. Exactly. But...one can dream. nt

[ClarendonDem]

40. Absolutely and completely disagree

With the notion that every country should have nuclear weapons. Would be great if no country had them, but that ship has sailed, and the US should work to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries as much as possible.

[KPN]

20. Traitorous!

If you were Bill Maher, you'd be losing your TV show right about now.

[malaise]

61. ROFL

Too old to care

[jmg257]

21. Because the more counties who have them,

The more likely the US will be to having to use them again.

[7962]

22. There's no way you could reliably get rid of all nukes.

Especially when countries like Russia, NK, China have them.
The cats outta the bag.

The US used two to save a million lives and end a war, not start one.

[Nay]

24. For the same reason abusers don't want other people to build their own strength.

Somebody just might fight back one day.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

27. Exceptionalism.

Nationalistic exceptionalism, racial exceptionalism, cultural exceptionalism and moral exceptionalism in many varieties throughout the world keeps us fenced away from our fellow man. Add territorialism to the mix and we have the national borders in existence today.

I suppose nuclear weapons could represent the ultimate fence.

What was the saying quoted from Rodney King in LA? "Can we get along?".

[Corvo Bianco]

28. Because America hordes the assholes.

[mountain grammy]

29. Very excellent question..

[NurseJackie]

30. ###

[Rustynaerduwell]

31. And what country that has killed millions of civilians on foreign soil

has the right to call others terrorist nations.

[ClarendonDem]

41. You agree

That the Taliban and ISIS are terrorist organizations, correct?

[malaise]

43. Not one existed until the US started the loot and plunder in the ME for oil - get real - most of

this was done on behalf of big oil and MIC. Add to that the theft of the Palestinians' land which patterned the stealing of land from the indigenous peoples of this planet.


Damn we suck as human beings and then pretend that we're all about freedom. We must be free but fuck everyone else.
That's why the planet now has Groper Don the Con in charge. The vast majority of us collectively bought their bullshit.

[ClarendonDem]

46. That's simply not true

At all.

The Taliban has been active in Afghanistan since the late 70s, and formed to fight Soviet intervention in that country. And who exactly stole the Palestinians' land, and what does that have to do with the Taliban or ISIS (neither of which are Palestinian organizations)? Setting all that aside, you didn't answer my question - do you agree that Taliban and ISIS are terrorist organizations (and, by the way, are plainly and indisputably the antithesis of liberalism - anti-education, anti-women, anti-free speech, etc., etc.).

[malaise]

48. Huh? Who financed the Mujahideen?

Who made Pakistan even more unstable and gave them the nukes?

Ghost Wars: How Reagan Armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan

https://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the

[ClarendonDem]

50. Timing is all off on your post

Soviets invaded Afghanistan in '78, and the Taliban came into being shortly thereafter. Reagan wasn't elected until Nov. of '80, and became president in '81.

What does Pakistan's program have to do with this discussion?

[malaise]

51. Whatever n/t

[ClarendonDem]

52. That's a persuasive response

Seems that we agree to agree.

[malaise]

53. Yours didn't persuade me either

So we agree to disagree

[ClarendonDem]

55. Seems that we rarely persuade folks on the Internet

To change their opinion. But nonetheless glad we could have the conversation.

[malaise]

57. Same here

[justgamma]

32. When Shrub described the "axis of evil"

and then bombed one of them, did they not think maybe the other 2 would hurry up with the nukes?

[Hoyt]

33. We never would have invaded Iraq if they had nukes, or even a creditable Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.

I'm with you -- we are the only country vile enough to have used nukes and we like being able to bully others around. That's one big reason why countries want nukes.

[ClarendonDem]

42. So Hoyt

Are you saying the US is vile because it used nuclear weapons (which ultimately saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans) to end the war with Japan, or just vile generally? Neither strikes me as true.

[Hoyt]

47. Your view on nukes and killing innocent women and children is as bad as

your love of guns. Not a big surprise.

[ClarendonDem]

49. Hoyt, seems you can't answer a simple question

So I'll ask it again - are you saying the US is vile because it used nuclear weapons (which ultimately saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans) to end the war with Japan, or just vile generally? There are several potential answers to that question, but of course feel free to ignore them and make more ad hominem attacks on me in your response.

[Hoyt]

58. The simple answer is, Japan was surrounded and beaten. Two nukes were not needed.

Yes, America is the only country vile enough to have used nukes. China hasn't, Pakistan hasn't, Russia hasn't, Iran hasn't, etc. There is no question about that.

Now go oil your guns and revel in your belief that America can do no wrong as long as guns are free and we can bully the world.

[ClarendonDem]

60. You are consistent with the personal attacks

Congratulations in that regard, even though it probably violates (or should) rules about attacking fellow Democrats.

So one nuclear weapon on Japan was ok, but two was too much? And Japan wasn't "beaten" until they surrendered.

Does America have "free" guns? That's news to me.

You still did't answer the question - is America vile because it used nukes or just vile generally. You can continue to avoid answering, but I'm going to keep asking.

[Hoyt]

62. Christ, you gunners are obtuse. Two was two too many. You probably support internment

camps too.

[ClarendonDem]

63. More personal attacks by Hoyt!

You never let me down, and just keep digging a deeper hole. So now there are two questions you refuse to answer, which I'll ask again (and revise a bit).

Was the use of one nuclear weapon on Japan ok? You've said several times that two was too much, so what about the US's use of one nuclear weapon?

And I'll ask for the third time - is America vile because it used nukes or just vile generally? "Vile" was your word, so own it and explain it.

DU allows liberals to discuss various issues, and disagree when appropriate, and I think it is generally bad form to alert on posts. But falsely accusing me of supporting "internment camps" -- apparently because your position is untenable -- just about crosses the civility line.

[malaise]

44. Sadly that's the truth

[bronxiteforever]

35. Nukes have become the worlds Second Amendment Right

If a country is armed then the US can’t over throw the regime because of the nuclear deterrence involved. The Iraq war taught that lesson to every despot in the world. Heck of a job Dick Cheney!
Brilliant points and from here we get into the odds for a surviving the proliferation of these weapons.
Peace, the undiscovered country. Apologies to Gene Roddenberry.
K &R

[malaise]

45. Very well said

and really sad

[denbot]

37. Truth be told.

They are sure as hell more fearful now.