The Myth of Nuclear Necessity

[Precocity]

Now this is a topic I can get into.

Myth 1: Nuclear weapons altered the course of World War II. Wilson argues that Japan surrendered due to its losses with the Soviets.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did alter the course of WWII. It ended the war only a few weeks after the Battle of Okinawa which resulted in the largest number of casualties in the war. Military strategists were predicting that an assault of mainland Japan would easily dwarf those numbers.

Was the Soviet threat part of it? Probably but attempting to downplay the role of the atomic bombings is very disingenuous because they played a heavy part in Japan surrendering earlier.

Myth 2: Nuclear weapons are such of "decisive destruction." Wilson says wars end when enough or all soldiers die, not necessarily a bunch of civilians.

This is a tough one to totally dismiss. Yet he appears to paint things as black and white that only when enough soldiers die does a war end. I disagree. Massive number of civilian deaths will play a part.

Myth 3: Nuclear weapons act as a deterrence to war. Not so, says Wilson. See the Yom Kippur and Falkland wars.

Again he talks about smaller regional wars. Nuclear weapons have been a deterrence to global or large scale theater wars. Mutually assured destruction is the main reason that the U.S. and Soviet Union have not engaged in war.

Myth 4: Nuclear weapons provided a long peace. Wilson says its dishonest to attribute "a long peace" to nuclear weapons simply because we haven't found an occasion to use them.

What? I won't even begin to start discussing that idea. What does he claim did attribute to "a long peace"?

Myth 5: Nuclear weapons can't be "uninvited." No, Wilson argues, but they can become obsolete when more and more wars are becoming smaller, smarter, and more urban.

I believe that the reason wars are becoming smaller, smarter and more urban is that no country will use nuclear weapons unless warranted because of the repercussions of doing so. The potential is always there for a major war to break out and the side with the nukes will destroy the other side that doesn't have them. As long as that potential exists and I doubt that will ever change, those that have nukes will keep them and those that don't will attempt to acquire them (see Iran).

[Mr.Bill]

Hirohito mentioning a 'new and cruel bomb' in his speech that ended the war is proof enough for me that the Abombs were the main reason for Japan's surrender.

[WizardfromOz]

[spacemonkey]

The US and Russia knew the consequences of lighting those things off enmasse, so they didn't. Problem now is they are becomming property of the dumbasses.

[Mr.Bill]

[spacemonkey]

[Stratego]

Well who negotiated the peace? US or Russia.

[The Comrade]

that just shows who they surrendered to. soviets did most of the work in germany but they tried their hardest to surrender to the US.

[Mr.Bill]

[The Comrade]

and china. had they kept their asses out of it the korean war wouldn't have been nearly as bloody.