Commando

Lets take it down a notch guys.

Bulgaroctonus

Sir,

Do you think that I am too young to imagine a nuclear holocaust? Do you think I consider nuclear affairs idly? We have both thought about nuclear war. I believe most people on Earth have. I think about the nuclear annihilation of my body and geographical area every day. Fortunately, my psychological mechanisms allow me to get off the subject for a good part of the day, but it is always lurking.

It is true that I do not have the same military experience as you, but that does not mean I am ignorant of the implications of nuclear war. Military officials do not have a monopoly on nuclear anxiety.

Sir,

I want cut off your attempt to discredit my argument right now. I sense that you might be trying to prove my points false only based on my inexperience. This is dissappointing, not only because you have done it so many times, but because it is misplaced in this case.

I have been very careful in my comments about nuclear weapons. I have not espoused unrestricted or foolish use of them. I have, instead, argued for their rational and strategic use against enemies of the United States. My comments about the use of atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima are by no means radical.

Never in my posts have I been attempting to impersonate or falsely construe an atmosphere of military experience. My comments have been general and non-technical. In fact, I stated in my post to Swift Sword that I do not have military or strategic training. You know this, so if you want to keep on pointing to my inexperience, I will have to grudgingly endure it. At the same time, I ask you to answer my actual arguments, not answer your preconceived notions of my age group.

Anyway, what I meant was that your comments about 'burning babies' are important philosophically and ethically, but not in a strict military sense. For example, the death toll of infants did not affect the placement of the bombs or the aerial strategy of the United States.

The death of infants was an unfortunate but necessary consequence of the business of war.

Well, then there is no problem if we picked the path of lesser evil. Again, I think a discussion of evil is less precise than a military discussion, which is what I am interested in right now. Sir, I am open to a philosophical discussion of right and wrong, but I think we must keep those things seperate from a strict discussion of military theory.


Sir,

That is untrue. I am well-acquainted as to what happens when a nuclear bomb detonates. If you want to discuss the science of it, or the aftermath of an explosion, I'd be pleased to do it.

So, there is something to argue. I welcome further discussion about nuclear policy.

People can soul-search all they want, that is a usual human response. However, I hope that they are relieved by the fact that they made the right decision militarily and upheld their duty as soldiers. Am I not correct in saying that a soldier's primary duty is to follow orders? Am I not correct in saying that a President's primary duty is to serve the interests of his nation?

Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision to make in accordance with America's national interests.

Bulgaroctonus

Rusky,

I have not been a war.

However, it is not true that a nuclear war must result in the extinction of the human species. For example, if the United States used nuclear weapons against Iran, there would be a significant chance that the humans species would live on. If the United States could receive assurances from the other main nuclear powers, such as China and Russia, not to get involved in the war against Iran, things would proceed in an acceptable manner.

Annihilation of the human species would probably occur if Russia and the United States had a nuclear war, or if either of the two powers detonated their nuclear stockpiles against another nation.

This is something I read some time ago:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/
Although it is dated (rather heavily) it seems to have some good arguments about nuclear war. One of the main ones is that nuclear war is not necessarily the death knell of human society.

I believe nuclear wars can be fought and won if executed properly. Of course, any nuclear war would be a catastophe for those actually in the blast or fall-out area. Again, I do not espouse nuclear war lightly. However, I do realize that it can be treated rationally and strategically.

Commando

That guide is very intriguing. These weapons are disgusting.

I wish we had a world without nukes.

Rusky

There is no way any foreign leader in his right mind that would give assurances to the United States or anyone that would allow them to carry out a nuclear attack without fear of retaliation, once again i repeat there is simply no way, Russia and France officially critisize US war in Iraq you think they'd be okay with the use of nukes?

Bulgaroctonus

So do we all, but that is not the reality.

We must accept that we will live in a nuclear world for centuries (barring human annihilation).

Commando

France has already threatened nukes against Iran.

Russia, they will not get militaristically involved, i have done lots of research on Putin. He is a young man and a fine leader. He is blamed a lot for the political failures that are not directly his fault.

Back on the annihilation issue. All it will take is for some crackpot in the future to get to president of USA or Russia and we are caboom. But if people elect such a lunatic then our morals and ethics are useless and we shouldn't even be on this land that God gave us.

Bulgaroctonus

I agree that is a far-fetched scenario, albeit a possible one. However, all I have to do is find one counterexample to prove your claim that all nuclear wars lead to human extinction is false.

I have done that.

Rusky

Eh...Putin is over 50.

Also i know about what the French president said but its the French, then push comes to shove they usually back down. Also the situation would have to be completely catastrophical in order for world leaders to allow US to use nukes and what we see today in Iran can not possibly result in such a situation, most i predict is a conventional war which makes more sense either way, why would you use a nuke to destroy a nuclear weapon production plant if you can use a guided missile to the same effect?

Officer of Engineers

Get back to me when you have smelled dead bodies rotting in the sun for a week.


You're speaking of military matters which requires military expertise to which you have absolutely none. Don't try for one second to tell me you know what war is like. You don't. I don't care what you've read, what you've seen on TV, what you've imagined. You don't know war. Don't insult us who've seen war.

It DOES deal greatly with the sense and strategy of the United States. I've sworn the Queen's Oath. Your countrymen has sworn to defend the Consitution of the United States. We are all above all else Men of Honour who will NEVER render meaningless nor allow to be render meanlingless the Honour of our countries and flags. We will NEVER shame nor willingly allow our countries to be shame. Sometimes, that cannot be helped in an effort to pursue victory but do not for one second believe that will the Honour of our countries come to harm simply because of military expidence.

The business of war. That's a good one. That's a load of horse manure. War is war.

Know what, little boy and that is what you are, a little boy. I ain't going to get it through your head that war is a damned ugly thing and nukes are ugliest of the ugliest than anything you can imagined. You ain't got the points of reference. You haven't puke your guts out from sight alone of dead and dying bodies. You haven't seen what I've seen. You haven't lost friends because you've screwed up. You don't have my nightmares. Don't pretend you do. You don't.

This discussion ends.

__________________
Chimo

Rusky

I wouldn't go that far, nukes have their purpose, because of their existance US and USSR never fought a conventional war, which would cause a severe loss of life on both sides, much more then WW2 probably.

Rusky

heh, i agree with tovarish Polkovnik, that should tell you something.... (you means Bulgaroctonus)

Officer of Engineers

Only through sheer blind dumb luck, off the top of my head, we've cocked the nuclear trigger four times - DELIBERATELY!

Cuban Missile Crisis
Berlin Crisis
73 Arab-Israeli War
Sino-Soviet Clash

I don't even want to list the accidental nuclear warnings.

Rusky

Bulgaroctonus i think you're a bit confused. Do you think that those serving in the army are not human? Do you think they lack human emotion and feeling of remorse for what they done? If thats what you think then you are wrong. A soldier is a human just anyone else, the guy in the field is just as human as you, and a guy in the strategy planning center is just as human as you. If you saw war, if you felt war we would not be having this discussion, nobody except sociopaths wants to be involved in mass murder, sometimes things have to be done because they have to be, for whatever reason, soldier is a job like any other, you don't think you do what you do, but that doesn't make the use of a nuclear bomb any less wrong, if you have seen the extent of human suffering you would understand that. Once again a military is not a machine, it is an organism composed of individual human beings who perform their function yet still remain human, the only one who can in our day and age seriously (i don't count you as serious, no offence) advocate the use of nuclear bomb and is fully aware of the consequences is somebody who is a sociopath nothing less and nothing more.

Bulgaroctonus

Sir,

You are making this an emotional argument when one is not needed.

Sir,

How does that actually affect what I am talking about? What assertion of mine is that relevant to?

Sir,

Find specifically where I have made a factual or logical error. If you cannot, then I suggest you do not lecture me about my lack of military experience. You are shouting at a wall, since I have never claimed I had military experience.

Remember, I have made numerous disclaimers about my lack of military experience. Nonetheless, you will have to find specific errors if you want to attack my argument. A charge of inexperience alone is not a valid argument.

Sir,

I am not advocating bringing shame to a nation. Find where I have. If you can, I will see if I can explain my point better so that it is more acceptable to you.

So what is incorrect?

Sir,

Again, you are not pointing out where I have made specific errors. I respect you as a soldier and as my senior in age, experience, and knowledge of military matters. We have had scholarly military discussions in the past (albeit rather one-way). I would like to have another one.

The argument at hand is about the strategic and military ideas concerning nuclear weapons. We all know war is ugly, but that is not what I am arguing. In fact, you were the one that started this rather circuitous tour-de-force of battlefield emotions and guilt.

Although, I must admit, I do enjoy actually getting into a heated argument once more. Ah, where is Sniper? Bring him back and we can reunite the old triumvirate of hate.